VINOD K.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of criminal complaint dated 27th of July, 2007 titled as Lakhwinder Singh v. Kamlesh Kaur, attached as Annexure P-6 and also the order dated 23rd of February, 2008 attached as Annexure P-7 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Jalandhar, summoning the petitioner to face the trial. The complaint tiled against the petitioner reads as under :- "1. That the complainant is a respectable citizen and comes from a highly respectable family. The complainant is a retired army personnel. 2. That the complainant carries high respect from the public in his locality/towns as well as in the other parts of the country. The complainant is also engaged in social work among the society. He is the cashier of the Gurdwara of his area. 3. That the complainant is known to the accused as she is living in his locality. Moreover in September 2004 the accused approached the complainant and requested to give a loan of Rs. Lacs for settling her husband abroad and for other domestic needs. The complainant gave Rs. 1 lac on 1-10-2004 and Rs. 50,000/- on 18.11.2004 after withdrawing the some from his bank to the accused. Again the complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- to the accused on 5-10-2005. In the month of April 2006, the complainant approached the accused to return his amount to which the accused requested the complainant for making efforts, for getting a bank loan for her on her house. She gave the sale deed of her house to the complainant. The complainant consulted with some bank officials but as the sale deed of the accused's house was in the name of her husband, so the loan could not be materialised, whenever the complainant asked for his loan amount, the accused used to put off the matter. Lastly the complainant convened a panchayat on 12.5.2006 consisting of the complainant, Major Singh Sandhu, Jasbir Kaur, Kuldip Singh, Qajjan Singh and Baljit Kaur etc. In the Panchayat the accused admitted to repay the loan of the complainant, at this the panchayat reduced the agreement into writing but later on again the accused refused to sign the agreement, but all the other panchavat members have signed the same. 4. That the accused annoyed with this intentionally made a false and frivolous application dated 20-7-2006 against the complainant to the police that the complainant his wife are travel agents and has taken Rs. 2,10,000/-, for sending the son of the accused to Australia. Moreover, the fact is that the son of accused was 15 years of at that time. 5. That the accused having ill will and malice against the complainant intentionally made a false and frivolous application to the police just to malign the image and to defame the complainant and tarnish his image in the society. 6. That the complainant and his wife was called to the Police Station Cantt. Jalandhar for joining investigation. At that time, the complainant, his wife and other respectables of his village made statements in favour of the complainant. Later on the police investigated the matter thoroughly and at last on 20.8.06 the investigating officer gave his final report that the accused Kamlesh Kaur instead of returning the amount of the complainant, filed this false and frivolous application and as per the enquiry/investigation it is amply clear that Lakhwinder Singh and his wife are not travel agents and have not taken any amount from the accused for sending her son abroad. Later on the matter was investigated by the higher officials also and lastly the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, made the report in favour of the complainant and filed the application of the accused being truthless and frivolous. 7. That due to the false and frivolous allegations of the accused against the complainant and his wife, the people of the locality and other parts started maintaining a distance from the complainant and his wife. Many people, openly asked the complainant that they were having high respect for him but now after this application they have got no respect for him. The complainant felt dejected, from the society at large for none of his fault. 8. That the accused have defamed the complainant without any justification by making a false and frivolous allegations against him and him and also by oral defamation amongst the public. 9. That the accused have committed the offence of defamation and criminal conspiracy under the most aggravating circumstances. 10. That the complainant is an aggrieved person, hence this complaint. It is therefore respectfully prayed that an enquiry may be made into the above allegations, the accused be summoned and deterrent punishment may be awarded in the interest of justice."
(2.) A reading of the complaint shows that the complaint seeks prosecution of the petitioner under Section 500 read with Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the plea that a false case was registered by the petitioner which resulted in his defamation. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations even if taken on their face value would not disclose any offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. Section 499 IPC reads as under :- "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." Exception 8th of Section 499 IPC reads as under : "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 mater of accusation."
(3.) THUS allegations made to the Police alleging the commission of offence would be covered in 8th Exception to Section 499 IPC and would not constitute defamation, even if the allegations levelled are taken on their face value.;