This petition has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 25.2.2004 as well as proceeding of Case No. 739 of 2004 (Sri Narain Vs. Kailashi Devi and others) pending in the court of AC.J.M. 1st Court No. 12, Gorakhpur.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

An application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Magistrate vide order dated 2.11.2002. It is relevant to mention here that the application was also accompanied by the medical report. The trial court also observed that the applicant, if so wishes, can file a complaint case as per law. After that, a complaint case was instituted by applicant no.1. During proceeding statement of applicant no. 1 was taken under section 200 Cr.P.C. whereas statement of one witness was recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. On 30.6.2003 in absence of the applicant no.1, the matter was dismissed in default. No further action was taken by the applicant no.1. Now the present case was preferred before the trial court on the ground that the opposite party no. 2 is a reputed person and having reputation in village as well as in his department where he is a multipurpose employee. The applicant is said to be a Government employee.

3. It is further asserted that by filing the above referred complaint case, applicant no.1 lowered his reputation in the eyes of public and thereby committed offence under section 500 I.P.C. The trial court after considering the evidence placed before it, summoned the applicants under section 500 I.P.C. for facing the trial.

4. The only contention that is raised before this court by the applicant is regarding the nature of alleged offence and on that ground, it is submitted that no offence under section 500 I.P.C. is made out. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted a ruling in his favour reported in 2010 Lawsuit (All) 2553 (Ganga Ram Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and another).

5. A co-ordinate bench of this court in the above referred ruling cited the relevant provisions, which are reproduced below.

(4) Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines defamation, according to which, whosoever 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 excepted, to defame that person.

6. Section 499 IPC has four explanations and the fourth explanation seems also to be relevant for the purpose of the present case, which is reproduced as follows:

"Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."

(5) There are as many as ten exceptions to the definition of the term "defamation". The exceptions VIIIth and IXth, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, are relevant in this case, which are reproduced as follows:

"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.

7. Ninth Exception.-Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good."

8. It is observed by the Hon'able judge that the learned Magistrate as