Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66695 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22595 of 2024 Applicant :- Naresh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 9 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pandey,Vijeta Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alok Kumar Gupta,G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Alok Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing the summoning order dated 29-10-2022 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 3400 of 2019, under Section 500 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, district Meerut. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and the police inquiry report dated 27.09.2019, which supported the allegations of defamation against opposite party nos. 2 to 10. It is further submitted that the revisional court also committed an error in law by upholding the rejection of the complaint without assigning due reasons. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Alok Kumar Gupta, has opposed the application and submits that the complaint was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate after due consideration of material on record. The findings recorded do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and no interference is warranted by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 6. It appears from the record that after detailed consideration of the complaint, statements, and the police inquiry report, the learned Magistrate rejected the complaint by a reasoned order dated 29.10.2022, which has been affirmed by the revisional court vide order dated 14.03.2024. Both courts have considered all relevant aspects, and this Court does not find any manifest illegality, arbitrariness, or abuse of the process of the Court in the impugned orders. 7. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. No such case is made out in the present matter. 8. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad