2025:UHC:9519 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 332 of 2014 29 October, 2025 Narender Singh --Applicant Versus Niwas Nautiyal and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for respondents. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the summoning order dated 04.03.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/ First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun, in Criminal Case No.645 of 2012 Sri Niwas Nautiyal and Another Vs. Narender Singh, under Section 500 IPC as well as the entire proceedings of the aforementioned Criminal Case. 2. The brief facts of case are that respondent No.1 filed a complaint case against the applicant alleging therein that applicant exceeded his jurisdiction and malign the goodwill and the reputation of the respondents. The applicant was appointed as invigilator/ instructor in the Institute of respondents and demanded Rs.1 Lakhs from the respondents to provide his services as an Invigilator and further apprehended the respondent No.1 to defame the reputation of institution. On 12.06.2011, applicant sent a report to the concerned department regarding the irregularity of institute while conducting the examination. Thus, feeling that the applicant had defamed the reputation of his institute, respondent No.1 had filed the present criminal complaint. 1 2025:UHC:9519 3. After filing of the complaint, which was registered as Complaint Case No.645 of 2012, and after examining the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate summoned the applicant under Section 500 IPC vide summoning order dated 04.03.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the applicant was appointed as an Invigilator/ Instructor in the institute of respondent No.1 to conduct the examination, he found several irregularities and discrepancies regarding the process of conducting the examination and he being an Instructor sent his report to Secretary, Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, Roorkee. He further submits that the respondents, being so much aggrieved against the report sent by the applicant, had lodged the false complaint against him, which is totally bad in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that to constitute an offence of defamation, there must be a legal grievance of aggrieved person, but, in the present case, the complaint does not disclose any specific defamatory statement against any specific and identifiable body of person, thus it cannot constitute an offence of defamation. Applicant had only sent a report regarding the irregularities of the institute of respondent No.1. He neither has any intention to defame nor had imputated any words for the institute of respondent No.1, therefore, the summoning order passed against the applicant is totally arbitrary and mechanical in nature, without an application of mind, and hence, it cannot justify the test of reasonability in passing the summoning order, summoning the accused person to face a criminal trial. 2 2025:UHC:9519 6. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit along with stay vacation application (IA/ 50/2025), which is taken on record. On the basis of counter affidavit, he submits that the applicant was appointed as Invigilator to supervise the examination for the year 2010-11 being conducted in the respondent- institute and no other work was assigned to the applicant, therefore, the applicant exceeded his authority by approaching directly to the Secretary, UBTER, Roorkee, Haridwar, regarding the irregularities as alleged. It is further stated that the applicant demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in response of his services as an invigilator and when the respondent-institute refused to fulfill his unlawful demand, then, the applicant threatened to defame the goodwill of concerned institute. The applicant labeled baseless allegations for harming social and moral reputation of the institute knowingly and with the maligned intent submitted false report of irregularities in the said institute to the Secretary, UBTER, Roorkee, Haridwar on 12.06.2011. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case of applicant does not fall within any eight exceptions laid down under Section 499 IPC, therefore, the complaint submitted by the respondents is genuine on this ground alone, furthermore, the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance and issued summoning order to the applicant, as learned Magistrate was satisfied as to the act of applicant falling within the definition of defamation. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the summoning order dated 04.03.2013 and entire documents available on record, this Court is satisfied with the argument of learned 3 2025:UHC:9519 counsel for applicant that the learned Magistrate has passed summoning order in a mechanical manner. As per the principle, which has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that for the purposes of summoning of an accused person, the Court has have to apply its mind on the material placed before it, prior to passing of the summoning order. Since, the summoning order do not justify the test as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others as reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. Furthermore, the applicant’s conduct is squarely covered with the Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC, therefore, the present C-482 application deserves to be allowed. Exception 8 of Section 499 IPC is quoted herein below: “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.” 9. In view of the above, the present C482 application is allowed. Consequently, summoning order dated 04.03.2013 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.645 of 2012 Sri Niwas Nautiyal and Another Vs. Narender Singh, under Section 500 IPC, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dehradun is hereby quashed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.10.2025 PN 4