JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Birendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No.10 of 2019 (Mohan Lal Saravagi Vs. Rajesh Churiwala), under Section 500 I.P.C., pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Varanasi, within a stipulated time period.

3. Counsel for the applicant has also sought to assail the order dated 18.01.2020 in terms of which the applicant has been summoned.

4. The only contention which is sought to be canvassed to challenge the proceedings is that the offence under Section 499 I.P.C. is not made out inasmuch as the case is covered under the first exception to the section which provides that if the imputation is made for public good, the same would not amount to defamation.

5. Learned AGA points out that the question as to whether an imputation is made for public good or not would be a question of fact which is to be seen in the trial and the same cannot be taken as a ground to seek quashing of the proceedings.

6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the relevant statutory provisions relating to defamation under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Penal Code would be required to be referred to. Section 499 reads as follows :

"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."

7. The first exception to Section 499, which is also relevant for the purpose of the controversy at hand, is being extracted below:

“First Exception-Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.”

8. Section 499 of the Penal Code states as to when an act of imputation amounts to defamation. It contains four explanations and ten exceptions and section 500 prescribes punishment in such cases. The ten exceptions to Section 499 state the instances in which an imputation, prima facie defamatory, may be excused. The first exception corresponds to the defence which may be set up by taking the plea of the imputation being true and for public good. This exception recognizes the publication of truth as a sufficient justification, if it is made for the public good. Truth by itself would be no justification in criminal law, unless it is proved that its publication was for the public good.

9. The plea of defence of public good, under the first exception to Section 499, fell for consideration in Chaman Lal Vs. State of Punjab, (1970) 1 SCC 590, and it was held that public good is a question of fact and the onus of proving the two ingredients under the first exception i.e. the imputation is true and the publication is for public good, is on the accused. It was stated thus:

“8. Public good is a question of fact. Good faith has also to be established as a fact.

xxx

15. In order to come within the First Exception to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be established that what has been imputed concerning the respondent is true and the publication of the imputation is for the public good. The onus of proving these two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good is on the appellant...”

10. The provisions relating to defamation under Section 499 were again considered in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, and in the context of the plea for justifying the impu