Exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499 IPC were central to the Court's decision, as they established that the imputations made in the complaint were not defamatory and were made in good faith for protection of the petitioner's interests.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of complaint No.COMI/30600198/2011 dated 08.01.2011 (Annexure P8), summoning order dated 27.10.2012 (Annexure P9) and the order dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P10) passed by the trial Court whereby the petitioner has been summoned and later on declared as proclaimed offender.

2. As per office report dated 08.04.2016, service of respondent No.2/complainant has been effected but there is no representation on his behalf as is clear from the earlier orders dated 15.07.2016, 21.07.2016 and 31.03.2016.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner has already put in appearance before the trial Court and has been granted fresh bail vide order dated 18.07.2016, the prayer qua order dated 16.04.2015 (Annexure P10) has become in-fructuous. It is further submitted that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.09.2001 and out of this wedlock a son namely Gurninder Singh was born on 15.05.2003. However later, on account of matrimonial discord between the parties, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was dissolved by way of decree of divorce dated 24.07.2011. It is further submitted that during the pendency of matrimonial litigation between the parties, the petitioner had given a complaint on 10.06.2005 to the Director General of Police for registration of a case under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the respondent/husband. It is further submitted that since the relationship between the parties was not cordial, certain other litigation levelling the allegations and counter-allegations also remained pending. The case regarding custody of the child wad decided and in FAO No.5361 of 2009, the custody of the child has been given to the petitioner and the appeal stands admitted.

4. The respondent/complainant instituted a complaint under Section 500 IPC against the petitioner on 08.01.2011 before the trial Court i.e. criminal complaint No.RBT-198/1 of 2011 and as per the allegations in the complaint, the petitioner while submitting a complaint to the Director General of Police, Punjab has levelled certain allegations which according to the respondent/complainant are derogatory and defamatory. It is further submitted that a perusal of the complaint would show that there are no allegations that this complaint was ever published to lower the estimation of the respondent/complainant before the general public or his close relatives.

5. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.10.2012 summoned the petitioner (Annexure P9) to face trial under Section 500 IPC.

6. It is further submitted that while passing the order, the trial Court has not appreciated the provisions of exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499 IPC, especially, in view of the fact that the petitioner/accused was the ex-wife of respondent/complainant and parties were litigating before the Court of law. It is also submitted that the maximum punishment provided under Section 500 IPC is 03 years and, therefore, the limitation provided for filing a complaint as per Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. is 03 years and the complaint which has been filed on 08.01.2011, before the trial Court on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner dated 10.06.2005 is time barred. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in fact, the petitioner was also involved in a false FIR No.65 dated 25.06.2005 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Harike, District Tarn Taran relating to a Will executed by her father in favour of her mother as well as the petitioner, registered at the instance of respondent No.2. This FIR was ultimately quashed by this Court in CRM-M No.2510 of 2006 vide order dated 16.12.2011 as the police has cancelled the aforesaid FIR. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the averments made i