The main legal point established in the judgment is that the timing of filing a complaint for defamation in the context of ongoing matrimonial proceedings is crucial, and evidence submitted in good faith to the court in matrimonial proceedings may not constitute defamation.

A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the summoning orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 5. 2. 2000. These summoning orders are passed in the complaint filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant' ). Complainant is the wife of the petitioner. Petitioner and the complainant were married on 23. 1. 1983. They lived together for few years and three female children, namely, Kanika (aged 16 years), Anupama Satsangi (aged 15 years) and Vasundha Satsangi (aged 10 years), were born out of this wedlock. It seems that the parties could not and did not live together peacefully. Sometime in the year 1994, the petitioner herein was separated from the complainant. Thereafter, on 27. 11. 1997, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13 (l) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In this petition, in order to prove the cruelty, the petitioner also filed, as Annexure-A,. e. tape-recorded conversation. It is alleged that this annexure contains reproduction of the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant which was recorded by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that this conversation would amply demonstrate that the complainant was treating the petitioner with cruelty.

( 2 ) IT maybe mentioned that the complainant has vehemently denied the alleged telephonic conversation as contained in the said Annexure-A. However, on the basis of some of the utterances on the part of the petitioner in the said conversation, the complainant has filed complaints against the petitioner under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the said utterances were defamatory in nature. To say it precisely, the complainant is feeling offended by the following imputation, which was uttered by the petitioner, in the purported tape-recorded conversation. He had said "randi, Kotha koon chala raha hai" (English translation - 'you prostitute, who is running the brothel' ).

( 3 ) THE complainant has stated that she is a doctor by profession and is a reputed gynaecologist. The aforesaid imputation against her made by the petitioner is extremely derogatory to her image and reputation. It is for this reason that the complainant submits that the petitioner be punished for committing offence of defamation in accordance with law. As aforesaid, summoning orders have been passed in this complaint.

( 4 ) THE grounds which are taken to quash the proceedings and which were argued by learned counsel for the petitioner may be summarised in the following manner :-

(i) the tape-recorded conversation and the transcription thereof, in the form of Annexure-A to the petition filed under the Act, have been filed in support of the petitioner's case alleging cruelty against the complainant in those proceedings. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the tape-recorded conversation is one of the pieces of evidence which has been filed to prove the cruelty. This move of the petitioner is in good faith and the evidence is given to an authorised person, namely, the court of law, who has lawful authority with respect to the subject matter of accusation;

(ii) the entire tape-recorded conversation, transcript whereof runs into 22 pages, would disclose that there \s no defamation which has been caused to the complainant. The Court should read the entire transcription and the conversation between the parties and in that context only the sentence in question which is attributed as defamatory, should be read and when the transcription is read in this manner it would clearly show that there is no defamation;

(iii) in any case the evidence produced before the matrimonial court, in the form of Annexure-A, is not a 'publication' in the eyes of law and has been made to a lawful authority in good faith. There is no third-party involved and mere submission of this transcription of the tape-re