IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of exception 8 to Section 499 of the IPC, emphasizing the need for good faith and lawful authority in making accusations and the importance of accurate reporting and public interest in determining defamation.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. - The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC') seeks quashing of summoning order dated 29.10.2013, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.6161/09, P.S. Kashmere Gate.2. The facts stated in the present petition are as under:

i. The petitioner was the Director of Centre of Governance, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University ('GGSIPU'), and held the position of Professor and Dean, University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU for six years, from 03.12.2007 to 03.12.2013.ii. The complainant/respondent no.1 ('complainant') was an Assistant Professor of Law at the GGSIPU, Kashmere Gate, since 23.08.2004 and had been engaged in teaching law, research and consultancy for about two decades. The complainant had filed a Public Interest Writ Petition No. 5572/07 titled as 'Ravindra Pratap & Anr. v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors.' wherein he had raised issues relating to minimum attendance of students.

iii. Subsequently, complainant moved an application under the Right to Information ('RTI') Act to the University for providing letters written by the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor of GGSIPU, dated 08.08.2008, 23.09.2008 and 30.06.2008. The said letters were provided to the complainant vide letters dated 02.04.2009 and 14.07.2009.

iv. Thereafter, on the basis of information provided under RTI, complainant filed a complaint before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court Delhi, under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C against the petitioner for her prosecution under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') alleging that the letters dated 08.08.2008 and 23.09.2008 were defamatory in nature and published deliberately with an intention to defame his reputation in the estimation of his colleagues, staff, universities and institution in India and abroad.

v. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate heard the matter and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 27.04.2010 while observing that it is not a case where prima facie offence is made out. Consequently, complainant challenged the said order in Criminal Revision No. 35/10 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ') remanded back the complaint to the learned Trial Court vide order dated 10.01.2011, to hear the matter afresh.

vi. Thereafter, learned Metropolitan Magistrate heard the matter afresh and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 10.10.2011, with the observation that there is no ground to proceed further with the complaint. Complainant challenged the said order before the Sessions Court of learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi and the case was again remanded back vide order dated 24.08.2012, with the direction that the judgments i.e., M.A Rumugam Vs. Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy AIR 2009 SC 341, Tata Motors Ltd Vs. State Crl. Rev. Petition No. 16/08 Decided on 12.02.2009 and Ved Kumar Gupta & Ors Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Crl. M.C. No. 1925/08 decided on 20.04.2009 were not considered and discussed by learned Trial Court.

vii. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court was pleased to take cognizance and summoned the present petitioner to face trial under Section 500 IPC, vide order dated 29.10.2013.

3. At the outset, it is noted that in the present petition counsel for the complainant initially entered appearance, but subsequently since 22.07.2022, no one has entered appearance on his behalf. Court notice was issued to the complainant on 13.01.2023 for 16.03.2023, which came back unserved on the address on record as the same was stated to be locked for the last 06-07 years. In view thereof, the complainant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.04.2023 and the matter was heard finally.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the complaint was based on incorrect facts and submissions, therefore the learned Metropolitan Magistrate mechanically, arbitrarily and without application of judicial mi