IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10339 of 2025 SYED RASHID ALI Versus YASMEEN NAAZ Appearance:

Shri Amanulla Usmani - Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent, though served.

ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973) seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC alleging that after her marriage with the applicant, disputes arose between them. On her complaint, a case under Section 498-A of IPC was registered in which the applicant was initially convicted by the learned trial court and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment; however, in appeal, the applicant was acquitted. Against the said acquittal, a revision petition is pending before this Hon’ble Court as Criminal Appeal No.197/2012.

3. It is the case of the complainant that due to registration of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the applicant gave written Talaq-i-Bain under Mohammedan Law. Thereafter, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the complainant and her relatives alleging offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 494 and 149 IPC, which was registered as ST No. 5/2018. The said case ended in acquittal of the complainant by judgment dated 14.10.2023.

4. According to the complainant, the said criminal proceedings were initiated by the applicant on false and fabricated allegations with the intention to pressurize her to withdraw the pending criminal proceedings and to defame her in society, thereby causing mental agony and damage to her reputation. After her acquittal in ST No. 5/2018, the complainant instituted the present complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

5. The learned JMFC, after recording the statements of the complainant and her father under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of IPC in RCT No. 10422/2024 and issued summons to the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order of cognizance and issuance of summons, the present petition has been filed by the applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even if the entire allegations are accepted at their face value, no offence of defamation is made out. It is contended that the alleged imputation was made in the form of a complaint/accusation to an authority having lawful authority over the complainant, and the same was made in good faith.

7. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered under Exception 8 to Section 499 of IPC, and therefore the basic ingredient of the offence itself is absent. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, it is argued, would amount to abuse of the process of law and would result in unnecessary harassment of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra and another (2023) 8 SCC

358.

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

9. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce Exception 8 to Section 499 IPC, which reads as under:

“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.”

10. The law relating to defamation is well settled. For an offence under Section 499 of IPC to be made out, the imputation must fall outside the exceptions provided therein. Where the allegations themselves disclose that the imputation was made to a person having lawful authority and in good faith, the offence of defamation is not constituted.

11. In the present case, a plain reading of the complaint and the admitted material shows that the app