The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the interpretation of the provisions of defamation.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Before entangling with the facts of the instant case, it would be appropriate to mention that this case is connected with Crl.M.C.No.3327/2000 which has since been allowed today itself. The facts in both the cases are almost similar and wherever they differ same shall be accordingly dealt in present order.

2. Vide order dated 03.06.2011 it is recorded as under:-

“Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that she has not received any instructions from respondent No.1 since long time. She had issued a notice to respondent No. 1 informing him that in case no instructions are received, she would be withdrawing from the brief as also intimating the next date of hearing i.e. 31st May, 2011. Order dated 31st May, 2011 shows that statement to this effect was made on that date but since notice was not placed on record, the matter was adjourned for today. Photocopy of notice and postal receipt have been placed on record. Since respondent No.1 has stopped giving instructions to the counsel, she is discharged from the brief. Date of hearing has already been informed by the counsel through the notice. Accordingly, I do not deem it fit to issue the court notice to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is proceeded ex-parte.”

3. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that Shri Rajender Kumar, authorised representative of respondent No.1 has expired on 13.02.2010. To this effect, he has produced original death certificate in connected matter being Crl.M.C.No.33274/2000.

4. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 filed Criminal Revision Petition No.247/2000 whereby the order dated 30.03.1998 has been challenged and said petition has already been dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 03.06.2011. Till date, same has not been challenged and attained finality.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in the above Crl. Revision Petition, referred above, informed the Court that no instructions have been received from the heirs and withdrew the Vakaltnama, therefore, aforesaid petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 03.06.2010.

6. In the matter at hand also, since no instructions were received by learned counsel for respondent No.1 despite informing through notice by learned counsel. Thereafter, discharge from the case was sought by learned counsel, which was allowed vide order dated 03.06.2011.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the instant case, they have moved an application for dropping of proceedings before learned Trial Court and same was declined observing the learned Magistrate Court has no powers to review its order in view of the decision Adalat Prasad v. Roop Lal Jindal 2004 (7) SCC 338.

8. The legal issue raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that the complaint being filed by respondent No.1, is barred by limitation and no case is made out against petitioners in view of the provisions contained in Section 499 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which with explanation Nos.8 & 9 reads as under:-

“499 Defamation:-

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Illustration

If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Zs master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, and child, to Zs father—A is within this exception.

Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s inte