The burden of proving 'good faith' in the context of defamation is on the accused, and the determination of whether the imputations are made in good faith can only be adjudicated upon by the trial Court after the parties lead their respective evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Section 561-A (482) Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint No. 19 titled as, "Kamal Kumar Lakhanpal v. Rashpal Singh" along with order dated 21.08.2018 pending before the Court of Railway Magistrate Jammu.

2. The factual matrix of the matter reveals that the impugned complaint came to be filed by the respondent herein, against the petitioner herein contending therein, the complainant to be a high ranking officials in Indian Army wielding high respect in society, amongst relatives and friends as also being the Chairman of Ex-serviceman Cell J&K of National Conference Party. The aforesaid image of the complainant is stated to have been tarnished by the accused/petitioner herein on account of having filed false, frivolous, fictitious complaints and cases.

3. It is being further stated in the complaint that the accused/petitioner herein also got various false news items published against the complainant/respondent herein, without any basis in various newspapers in order to black mail the complainant/respondent herein.

4. It is being stated in the complaint that the complainant/respondent herein has led a honest dedicated life having never indulged into cheating or fraud. It is also stated that Properties had been inherited by the complainant from his father and on account of publication of false news item by the accused/petitioner herein, the complainant/respondent herein got defamed and suffered great mental torture and agony.

5. It is being stated in the complaint that the accused/petitioner herein was served with a legal notice by the complainant/respondent herein calling upon him to tender unconditional apology in this regard.

6. The said acts of omissions and commission of the accused/petitioner herein against the complainant/respondent herein are stated to constitute an offence punishable under Section 500(b) RPC.

7. The impugned complaint along with order dated 21.08.2018 is being challenged in the instant petition inter alia on the grounds that the impugned order passed by the Court below is against the mandate of law having been passed without applying mind and recording any satisfaction and that the impugned order is contended to have been passed wrongly mentioning Section 500(b) RPC without there being any such provision in the RPC and that the allegations leveled in the complaint against the accused/petitioner herein that the news items published against the complainant/respondent herein nowhere indicate that the same were reported by the accused/petitioner herein and that the impugned complaint is abuse of process of law instituted with a motive to harass the accused/petitioner herein but instead has been for pressurizing him to deter from pursuing the case pending investigation in the Vigilance Organisation against the complainant/respondent herein as also before the Special Tribunal Jammu and that the impugned complaint as well as impugned order are misuse of process of law.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been a whistle blower against acquiring of three fraudulent allotments of land by the complainant/respondent herein and in this regard complaint had been filed by the petitioner herein against the complainant/respondent herein and against his two brothers before Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu resulting into cancellation of said allotment by the said officer in terms of order dated 20.02.2017 and that the Vigilance Organization, Jammu conducted an enquiry into said illegal allotment of land in favour of the complainant/respondent herein.

10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a complaint also came to be filed by him before the Learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Jammu against the respondent herein and his brother for having concealed facts while securing allotment of Evacuee land and the said Court is contended