IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that for a defamation claim under IPC Sections 499 and 500, the publication must lower the reputation of the complainant, and the truth of the statements must be proven in their entirety for a successful defense.

JUDGMENT

1. The petition is directed against the order of issuance of process dated 15th December 2018 passed in Criminal Complaint C.C. No.2379/SW/2018 filed in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter 'IPC', for short).

2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, contending that the petitioner got published the following news item in Mumbai Mirror Edition Mumbai dated 29th September 2018. The extract quoted in the complaint reads as under:-

<WXY>"Harish Kumar Garg president of the Club said that the elections were being held in a free and fair manner. There are absolutely no irregularities at all. We have followed all Rules and Bye law. The allegations are totally baseless. This is an attempt to malign the image of the Club and the Committee,' Garg said

He explained that the Courts had not given any relief to Bhasin or Goenka' They first asked us to include them in our panel and when we rejected the they started making these allegations. No Court has given them any interim relief They wanted to get the elections barred but they failed. All their attempts to defame us and cancel the elections have failed,'' Garg said.</WXY>

3. It is contended that the reputation of the complainant has been adversely affected by such averments, as allegations and the words are read by peers in the profession as well as by the public at large through such newspaper. It is stated that respondent no.2/ complainant believes that whatever was stated by the petitioner has jeopardized the complainant's reputation in the profession, and he has been defamed. It is alleged that the petitioner tried to harm the reputation of respondent no.2/complainant by false and incorrect statements without any material or substance with the sole intention of defaming the complainant.

4. The learned Magistrate, by a detailed order dated 15th December 2018, issued a process against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed a present writ petition.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that even if allegations in the complaint supported by the statement of the complainant and other material on record are accepted as correct, still necessary ingredients of the offences alleged are not fulfilled.

He submitted that there was no intention to defame the complainant. The article and contents thereof are not defamatory. It has not lowered the reputation of the petitioner. On the contrary, a statement that the Court has not granted relief to the complainant is true. A material fact is suppressed as orders dated 24th September 2018 and 11th March 2019 are suppressed. The ingredients of defamation are not satisfied. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment in the case of W. Hay and others Vs. Ashwin Kumar Samanta reported in 1957 SCC OnLine Calcutta 26 and MJ Zakharia Sait Vs. T.M. Mohammed And others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 396.

6. Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondents submitted that considering the scope of inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is guided by allegations in the complaint in law constitute or spell out offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. He submitted that it is not necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. If it appears on a consideration of allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant, that the ingredient of offence is disclosed and there is no material to show that complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, this Court should not interfere with the order of issuance of process. Inviting my attention to the reasons in the impugned order, he submi