The determination of defamation and the intention to harm reputation are matters for a trial, and a prima facie case established by the complaint justifies the initiation of criminal proceedings.

Navin Sinha, J.

1. The prayer in these two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing the order dated 18.10.2002 issuing summons to the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 1501 (C)/2002, for standing trial under Sections 500, 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. A complaint case bearing No. 150 (0/2002 was filed by one Dr. Chandra Bhushan Verma, the opposite party No. 2 in both these applications, under Section 482 Cr PC. The two petitioners herein are said to be the President of the Teachers Association, Patna University and General Secretary of the Employees Association, Patna University : They have been impleaded as accused No. 4 and 7, respectively, in the aforesaid complaint case. The complainant/opposite party No. 2, in the complaint petition alleged that he was appointed as a Lecturer in the Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, Patna University, in 1999. The complaint further alleged that the complainant was also a Lawyer in the Civil Court at Patna. He devoted extra time in the Vanijya Mahavidyalaya, after his appointment in November, 1999 as a Lecture due to shortage of teacher in the subject of Commerce. This he did on an honorary basis. He did not get any salary from the College and provided free service. It was further alleged that accused 1, 2 and 3 published a news item in the paper Hindustan on 24.7.2002 in collusion and conspiracy with accused 4 to 8 against the character of the complainant. The article published on 24.7.2002 suggested that a lawyer was teaching Commerce to students without possessing qualifications for the same. The complaint stated that the complainant possessed the requisite degree for appointment as a Lecturer and held a Ph. D. degree in Commerce, after completing his Graduation from Patna University. It further alleged that the accused persons together published the article which was defamatory, stating that the complainant possessed no teaching experience and the University was silent on the issue as to how such person came to be appointed. The teachers union of the University have demanded the removal of the Principal and also threatened agitation against such appointment. The opposite party/complainant was appointed despite the fact that trained teachers were available in the subject in the University. Though for appointment of additional teacher sanction of the Vice- Chancellor was necessary but no such sanction was obtained for the appointment of the complainant. The Deputy General Secretary of the Teachers Association in-formed that a case of a lecturer was pending in the Civil Court which was being conducted by the complainant and that the complainant had been so appointed to keep him happy. The principal of the College had agreed that the complainant was not a lecturer of the College but was teaching in the College from the time of the previous Principal and that his services had only been extended. The complainant was alleged to have been appointed on 24th September, 2001. Taking serious exception to this appointment the Deputy General Secretary of the Teachers Association, Prof. Amar Nath Singh and General Secretary of the Employees Association of the University stated that such an appointment of an outsider as a lecturer had been made for the first time in the history of the Vanijya Mahavidyalaya. The Association had thus demanded removal of the Principal and had also threatened agitation. This would be the essentials of the publication giving rise to the complaint case.

3. The complaint case was filed on 30.7.2002. The statement of the complainant on S/A and enquiry followed and summons were issued by the Magistrate on 18.10.2002 the present petitioners besides others. The Magistrate was satisfied that the complaint, the evidence led before him and the publication prima facie constituted offences under Sections 500, 501 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The judicial process with regard to exercise of powers under Se