*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. COMI 423/2019 titled as “Harbans Lal Vs. Santosh Kumari and another” instituted under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, as well as summoning order dated 22.08.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Harbans Lal, who is stated to be the maternal uncle of Bishan Kumar, alleged that accused No.1 Santosh Kumari, after her marriage with Bishan Kumar in the year 2009, started residing at Jalandhar and subsequently, got registered FIR No.85 dated 02.11.2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 406 IPC at Police Station Division No.1, Pathankot against her husband Bishan Kumar and the complainant. It was alleged that the said FIR was false and frivolous and was lodged with an intention to harass and defame the complainant. Thereafter, accused No.1 entered into a compromise with her husband Bishan Kumar and FIR No.85 dated 02.11.2012 came to be quashed by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2016 passed in CRM-M 31862 of 2016 titled as “Bishan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and another”. It was further alleged that thereafter the complainant also filed CRM-M-4969 of 2017 for quashing of the aforesaid FIR qua him. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant alleged that the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other, had lowered his reputation in the eyes of society and caused him mental agony, harassment and embarrassment, on account of which the present complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC came to be filed. Thereafter, preliminary evidence led by the complainant was considered and arguments on the point of summoning were heard by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, who vide impugned order dated 22.08.2022 observed that the complainant had examined himself as CW-1 and Kuldeep Kumar as CW-2 in support of the allegations that accused No.1 Santosh Kumari had lodged a false FIR No.85 dated 02.11.2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 406 IPC against the complainant and Bishan Kumar with mala-fide intention to lower the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the public and to harass him. Learned trial Court further observed that the said FIR had subsequently been quashed on the basis of compromise qua Bishan Kumar and later qua the complainant by the Hon’ble High Court and that the complainant had suffered mental agony, humiliation and damage to his reputation on account of the false allegations. On the basis of the preliminary evidence, learned JMIC held that a prima-facie case under Sections 499 and 500 IPC was made out against accused No.1 Santosh Kumari and accordingly, ordered her summoning, whereas the complaint against accused No.2 was dismissed for want of sufficient material.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned complaint as well as summoning order dated 22.08.2022 are nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law and have been issued without proper appreciation of the factual as well as legal position. It has been argued that the FIR No.85 dated 02.11.2012 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 406 IPC was lodged by the petitioner against her husband Bishan Kumar and respondent No.2/complainant Harbans Lal and the same cannot ipso facto constitute an offence of defamation merely because subsequently, the FIR came to be quashed on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel submits that firstly, the FIR was quashed qua husband Bishan Kumar vide order dated 22.10.2016 passed by this Court in CRM-M-31862-2016 on the basis of compromise and thereafter, the FIR was also quashed qua respondent No.2/complainant Harbans Lal vide order dated 02.02.2018 passed in CRM-M-4969-2017, wherein this Court had observed that the allegations