Criminal defamation proceedings require a clear prima facie establishment of malicious intent and publication. Summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring careful judicial scrutiny of evidence. If evidence of the accused's culpability is absent, courts must quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anil Mullick, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Hari Keshav, learned Counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 06.04.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, District Meerut, and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 907 of 2024 under Section 500 I.P.C., Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut, as well as the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut, in Criminal Revision No. 419 of 2024.

3. According to the facts, Dr. Akshay Jain, the opposite party No. 2/ complainant filed the subject complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, District Meerut, alleging that the applicant published an article in the edition dated 9th July 2023 of the Dainik Jagran newspaper as a news item titled "Dr. Akshay's Prescription Used; Accused Granted Bail in Snigdha Case." The applicant also filed false and baseless complaints against him on the Chief Minister Portal, Prime Minister Portal, and several other platforms. Accordingly, the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, was directed to inquire into the matter. He further alleged that after investigation, the entire matters/complaints were found to be false and baseless. These acts of the applicant brought down his reputation in the eyes of the public at large; thus, the applicant was liable to be prosecuted for criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 IPC.

4. The learned Magistrate, after considering all the averments made in the complaint, statements of opposite party No. 2 and witnesses (Uttam Saini, Jamuna Das, and Bilal Rizvi) under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and documents filed with the complaint, summoned the applicant under Section 500 IPC vide order dated 06.04.2024. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the said summoning order by filing Criminal Revision No. 419 of 2024, but the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut vide order dated 10.09.2025. The order dated 06.04.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, and the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, are assailed in the present application.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Magistrate committed a serious error in taking cognizance of the complaint, which fails to disclose the commission of any offence. He further submitted that even if the entire case, as presented by opposite party No. 2, is accepted or believed to be true, none of the ingredients constituting the offence of defamation as defined in Section 499 of IPC and made punishable under Section 500 of IPC are disclosed. He pointed out that the applicant has no connection with the said news article, and nowhere, either in the news item or in the complaint, is it stated that the news item was published by the applicant. The news item published in the newspaper concerns court proceedings, which are fully covered by Exception IV of Section 499 IPC.

6. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to consider Exception VIII of Section 499 IPC. The applicant filed these complaints against opposite party No. 2 in good faith, as charge sheets under Sections 193 and 120-B IPC were filed against him. All the complaints made to the Chief Minister Portal, Prime M