HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3248 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Shri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shikhar Tandon, learned counsel for the private respondent and Shri D.K. Rai, learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to set aside the summoning order dated 01/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-3 Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 1123 of 2023 (Rahul Garg Vs. Venkatesh) as well as order dated 21/08/2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.-4, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 746 of 2023 (Venkatesh Vs. State of U.P. and another). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and respondent no.2 are members of Ajnara Integrity Society, District Ghaziabad. It was submitted that Complaint Case No.1123 of 2023 (Rahul Garg vs. Venkatesh) was filed by respondent against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has frequently circulating message on social media by making false allegations against the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that allegations mentioned in the complaint itself are not sufficient to constitute an offence of defaming. However, the trial court relying upon the bald allegations of circulating message against the respondent, summoned the petitioner to face trial for offence under Section 500 IPC vide order dated 1.9.2023. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2023, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.746 of 2023 (Venkatesh vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) which was dismissed on 21.8.2024. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Gajendra Singh Arya, Shikhar Tandon Venkatesh .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel submitted that none of the courts has considered whether the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted to be true, will constitute the offence of defaming or not. It was lastly submitted that both orders are patently illegal and are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that the respondent was elected as President of Ajnara Integrity Society and was faithfully conducting his duties. However, the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the said Society, with an intention for political motives, started circulating false allegation against him on WhatsApp group. Even the respondent was compelled to resign from his post as President after he was disturbed by the activities of the petitioner. He further submitted that the false claim was made by the petitioner in an email by alleging that respondent had misappropriated an amount of Rs.35 Lakhs pertaining to the Society. It was submitted that the conduct of the petitioner has resulted in loss of reputation of the respondent and his conduct, prima facie, amounts to an offence of defamation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by both courts. 6. In order to examine the issue, it is necessary to understand the scope of defamation under Section 499 IPC. For an offence of defamation, there must be a clear imputation made by words, spoken or written, with intention or knowledge that it will harm the reputation of a person. Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC makes it clear that an imputation amounts to defamation only when it lowers the moral or intellectual character of a person, or lowers his reputation in respect of his profession, or affects his credit in the eyes of others. Thus, unless the statement actually lowers the person’s reputation in the eyes of society, no offence is made out. 7. In the present case, even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, they only show that the petitioner circulated certain messages on a WhatsApp group and sent an email making allegations regarding the functioning of the Society and financial irregularities. However, the complaint does not mention the exact words used or explain how those statements lowered the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of others. A227 No. 3248 of 2025 2 A general statement that the complainant suffered loss of reputation or resigned from his post is not enough. Therefore, the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 499 IPC and no prima facie case under Section 500 IPC is made out. 8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated dated 01/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.-3 Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 1123 of 2023 (Rahul Garg Vs. Venkatesh) as well as order dated 21/08/2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.-4, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 746 of 2023 (Venkatesh Vs. State of U.P. and another) are hereby set aside. May 6, 2026 SK A227 No. 3248 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad