ORDER
I.A. Ansari, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. P. Bora, learned Counsel for the complainant-opposite party.
2. The petitioner herein lodged a complaint case against the opposite party herein, who is a practicing Advocate and a member of Sibsagar Bar Association, the case of the petitioner being, in brief, as under:
(i) The petitioner lodged a complaint with the President, Sibsagar Bar Association making allegations to the effect, inter alia, thus : An agreement for sale of a plot of land with house standing thereon was entered into between the petitioner and one Dr. Saurav Kumar Gogoi and as per agreement, advance amount was given by cheque, which was duly received by Dr. Saurav Kumar Gogoi and possession of the land was accordingly given to the petitioner. Alter taking possession of the land, the petitioner contacted the opposite party for preparing sale deeds and for doing other necessary official works. The opposite party had demanded Rs. 2,01,000/- for execution of sale deed and other works and accordingly, the petitioner had paid the said amount to the opposite party. Thereafter, the opposite party informed the petitioner that the entire plot of land would be divided into six parts and six persons were required. The petitioner accordingly furnished six names of his family members to the opposite party. Later on, the petitioner was informed by the opposite party that the accused had, with the help of mandal of SDC office, tried to divide the land into six parts in order to reduce the value of the land, but the land was divided into four parts by the ADC, Sivasagar. Thereafter, the petitioner co-operated with the accused in purchasing necessary stamp papers for execution of the sale deeds. Initially, the stamp papers were purchased for less value, but later on, stamp papers were purchased for entire value in the name of the petitioner, his wife and one Manisha Kumari Beria and the same were handed over to the opposite party. After purchasing the stamp papers, the petitioner informed the opposite party that as per advice of the vendor, they wanted to execute sale deed on 21-4-2006. The opposite party advised the petitioner to contact opposite party’s brother for doing the work, for, the opposite party’s brother is also an Advocate. As the brother of the opposite party was not available on 21-4-2006, the opposite party collected the stamp papers from the house of the petitioner. Accordingly one sale deed for one part of the land was executed by the vendor of the land through his attorney for the land measuring 16.66 lechas at a consideration of Rs. 1,33,333/ . The petitioner accordingly paid the said amount to the attorney of the vendor through cheque. Thereafter, the remaining sale deeds were presented before the Sub-Registrar. Sivasagar, and it was decided that the remaining sale deeds shall be executed on 22-4-2006, but the attorney of the vendor. Dr. Sourav Gogoi, did not turn up on the date fixed and on being contacted, the attorney of the vendor demanded the balance amount of three plots and informed the petitioner that he (attorney) would execute the sale deed together on a later date. As per the advice of the opposite party, the petitioner gave the balance amount to Dr. Saurav Gogoi and the petitioner also submitted that stamp papers to the accused for execution, but the attorney of Dr. Saurav Gogoi did not come to the Sub-Registrar’s office to sign the stamp papers. Thereafter, on 7-8-2006, the petitioner received a notice from one Sri L. P. Dutta, counsel of the vendor, and replied thereto, on 14-8-2006, through his counsel describing all the events. Later on, the petitioner came to know that one junior Advocate of the opposite party had executed a sale deed, on 28-9-2006, in respect of the land measuring 5 kathas 6 lechas in favour of Sri Gopal Prasad Joshi and Smt. Sumon Joshi, who are relatives of the petitioner through the stamp papers, which were with the opposite party and deposited the same before the Sub-Registrar, Sivasagar, and the same was done at the instance of the opposite party. After a few days, when the petitioner came to know that the said purchaser had, by breaking the lock of the gate of the land, forcibly taken possession of the land, the petitioner filed an FIR, which was registered as Sivasagar Police Station Case No. 490/2006 under Sections 427/447/406/420/506,I.P.C. As no action was taken by the police, the petitioner had filed Title Suit No. 17/2007 before the Civil Judge, Sivasagar, for cancellation of the sale deed and for specific performance of the agreement entered into with him by the vendor. After a few days, when the petitioner met the opposite party in the Court premises and demanded the money paid to him and enquired about the fact of purchase of the land, the opposite party threatened the petitioner and tried to assault him.
(ii) A copy of the said complaint was furnished not only to the Chairman, Bar Association, New Delhi, but also to the Chief Justice, Gauhati High Court. Copies of the said complaint were also made over to various members of the Bar by the complainant. Reacting to the complaint, so made, the complainant-opposite party herein lodged a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sibsagar. This complaint gave rise to Complaint Case No. 98/2007 aforementioned, the case of the complainant-opposite party herein being, in brief, that the present accused-petitioner had lodged a complaint with the President of the Bar Association by suppressing material facts just to harass him and humiliate him by lowering his reputation. Having recorded statement, under Section 200, Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate directed issuance of process under Sections 500 and 501, I.P.C. against the present petitioner as accused.
3-4. By making this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the accused-petitioner has sought to get quashed the order, dated 21-6-2007, whereby process has been directed to be issued against the accused. It is not in dispute before me that the contents of the complaint made by the present petitioner were, if not true, contain such statements, which amount to defamation. What has, however, been contended, on behalf of the petitioner, is that the accusations made by the present accused against the opposite party falls within the eight exception to the offence of defamation as contained in Section 499. The eight exception to Section 499 reads, “Eight 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.”
5. A bare reading of the Eight Exception shows that when an accusation is preferred in good faith to a person who has lawful authority over the person against whom the accusation is made, then, it will not amount to defamation. This Exception is really an exception for the defence, where an accusation has been made in good faith. Whether an act has been done in good faith by a person or not is a question of fact and cannot be determined in a quashing proceeding, for, it will depend on the evidence, which may come on record, in this regard. This apart, the present accused did not make complaint to merely the President of Bar Association or to the President of the Bar Council, but he also made/circulated the copies thereof to various other Advocates, who, individually, had no authority in the matter. In such circumstances, unless and until the petitioner satisfies, on the basis of the evidence, which may be adduced, that the accusations made by him were in good faith and to persons, who have lawful authority over the matter, neither the complaint nor the impugned order, dated 21-6-2007, directing issuance of process against the accused-petitioner, can be said to be without authority of law or against law.
6. Because of what have been indicated above, I do not find that either the complaint, at this stage, can be quashed or the impugned order, dated 21-6-2007, can be legally interfered with. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this criminal petition is not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed.