Vipin Kumar Malhotra vs State Of U.P. And Another

A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 43284 of 2025
Vipin Kumar Malhotra
…..Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Mullick
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hari Keshav
Reserved on – 18.02.2026
Delivered on - 15 .05.2026
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1 . Heard Mr. Anil Mullick, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Hari Keshav, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2 . This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed to quash
the summoning order dated 06.04.2024, passed by the Judicial
Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1,
District Meerut, and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 907
of 2024 under Section 500 I.P.C., Police Station Lalkurti, District
Meerut, as well as the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut, in Criminal Revision No. 419 of
2024.
3 . According to the facts, Dr. Akshay Jain, the opposite party No. 2/
complainant filed the subject complaint in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1,
District Meerut, alleging that the applicant published an article in the
edition dated 9th July 2023 of the Dainik Jagran newspaper as a news
item titled "Dr. Akshay's Prescription Used; Accused Granted Bail in
Snigdha Case." The applicant also filed false and baseless complaints
against him on the Chief Minister Portal, Prime Minister Portal, and
several other platforms. Accordingly, the Chief Medical Officer,
Meerut, was directed to inquire into the matter. He further alleged that
after investigation, the entire matters/complaints were found to be false
and baseless. These acts of the applicant brought down his reputation in
the eyes of the public at large; thus, the applicant was liable to be
prosecuted for criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 IPC.
4 . The learned Magistrate, after considering all the averments made
in the complaint, statements of opposite party No. 2 and witnesses
(Uttam Saini, Jamuna Das, and Bilal Rizvi) under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., and documents filed with the complaint, summoned the
applicant under Section 500 IPC vide order dated 06.04.2024.
Thereafter, the applicant challenged the said summoning order by filing
Criminal Revision No. 419 of 2024, but the same was dismissed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut vide order dated
10.09.2025. The order dated 06.04.2024, passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, and the order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, are assailed in the present application.
5 . Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the learned
Magistrate committed a serious error in taking cognizance of the
complaint, which fails to disclose the commission of any offence. He
further submitted that even if the entire case, as presented by opposite
2 of 15

party No. 2, is accepted or believed to be true, none of the ingredients
constituting the offence of defamation as defined in Section 499 of IPC
and made punishable under Section 500 of IPC are disclosed. He
pointed out that the applicant has no connection with the said news
article, and nowhere, either in the news item or in the complaint, is it
stated that the news item was published by the applicant. The news item
published in the newspaper concerns court proceedings, which are fully
covered by Exception IV of Section 499 IPC.
6 . He further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to consider
Exception VIII of Section 499 IPC. The applicant filed these complaints
against opposite party No. 2 in good faith, as charge sheets under
Sections 193 and 120-B IPC were filed against him. All the complaints
made to the Chief Minister Portal, Prime Minister Portal, etc., were
filed in good faith without malice. He further submitted that summoning
any person in a criminal case is a serious matter, and criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Magistrate must
carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and determine
whether any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate may even
personally put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit
answers to find out the truth of the allegations and then examine if any
offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. In the
present case, the learned Magistrate has committed a serious error in
passing the summoning order, as no prima facie case is made out
against the applicant. Even the learned Revisional Court has not passed
the impugned order in accordance with the facts of this case.
Accordingly, the summoning order, as well as the order passed by the
Revisional Court, is liable to be set aside.
7 . Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 vehemently
opposed the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the applicant
repuler and stated that opposite party No. 2 is a senior and renowned
doctor of Meerut city. He has been successfully, diligently, and honestly
3 of 15

running his medical practice from Arogya Clinic, B-13, Adarsh Nagar,
Meerut for many years. He enjoys a rich legacy that is enviable, having
been established by a person of unimpeachable character and reputation.
The defamatory news article and mala fide complaints made against
him by the applicant have had a serious and adverse impact on his
reputation. The said news article was widely circulated and caused
considerable harm to him. As a result, his reputation was significantly
tarnished, and his credibility has been undermined in the eyes of his
clients and the public. He further submitted that in light of the
substantial reputational damage caused, he preferred a complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the applicant for committing criminal
defamation. He underwent examination and also produced three
witnesses. The learned Magistrate, after careful consideration of the
defamatory nature of the said news article and the complaints made
against him, issued summons against the applicant.
8 . He further submitted that he had a long-standing relationship with
the family of the applicant. The applicant's daughter, Snigdha, was
married to Udit Arya, who was being treated by Dr. Geetanjali. Dr.
Geetanjali prescribed some medicine. However, Udit Arya was unable
to read or understand the medicines and requested opposite party no.2 to
write them clearly on his letterhead. Thereafter, opposite party No. 2
wrote the medicines clearly on his letterhead in good faith. After some
time, Snigdha died due to dengue. Subsequently, the applicant lodged
an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 310 of 2022 against Udit Arya, Rakesh
Arya, Madhu Arya, and Shubham Arya under Sections 498A and 304B
IPC. Later, all the accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the
High Court. Thereafter, the applicant filed complaints against him
before different forums and also got the said news articles published to
cause defamation. The learned Magistrate has not committed any
illegality in passing the summoning order, as a prima facie case is made
out against him. Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not
4 of 15

committed any illegality by dismissing the said criminal revision and
submitted that this application is liable to be dismissed.
9 . Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and
having gone through the material available on record, the only question
for determination is whether the allegations made in the complaint filed
by opposite party No. 2 make out the offence under Section 500 IPC or
not.
10 . Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:
“499. Defamation.—
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.
Explanation 1. — It may amount to defamation to impute
anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm
the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be
hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2. — It may amount to defamation to make an
imputation concerning a company or an association or
collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3 .— An imputation in the form of an alternative
or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4. — No imputation is said to harm a person’s
reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the
estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual
character of that person, or lowers the character of that
person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the
credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body
of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally
considered as disgraceful.
Fourth Exception .— Publication of reports of proceedings of
Courts.— It is not defamation to publish substantially true
report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the
result of any such proceedings.
5 of 15

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.”
11 . Before appreciating the rival contention, it is necessary to look
out into the specific allegation raised in the complaint against the
applicant which are extracted in English as under:
“1. The petitioner/complainant is a senior and well-known
physician in Meerut city and has been successfully, diligently,
and honestly running his medical practice under the name
"Arogya Clinic" at B-13 Adarsh Nagar, Meerut, for many
years. The petitioner/complainant enjoys a good reputation
in the field of medicine in Meerut district and surrounding
areas and is always ready to provide social service,
treatment, and assistance to poor and needy patients. The
petitioner/complainant is also an income taxpayer.
2. Upon reading the news published on page 6 of the daily
newspaper Dainik Jagran dated 09-07-2023 titled "Dr.
Akshay’s Prescription Used, Accused in Snigdha Case Got
Bail," the petitioner/complainant was surprised. In it,
Snigdha's father (Vipin Kumar Malhotra) accused the
petitioner/complainant of colluding with the accused in the
Snigdha case to secure bail for them and improperly issuing
a prescription for Snigdha’s treatment. The news also
revealed that Vipin Kumar Malhotra and his family lodged a
false complaint against the petitioner/complainant with the
Chief Medical Officer (CMO), following which the petitioner/
complainant was asked for clarification. Due to the news
publication and the petition submitted to the CMO office, the
petitioner/complainant suffered severe defamation within the
medical community and in Meerut district and surrounding
areas, seriously damaging his reputation and standing. After
the publication of the news and circulation of the petition
among the people, many discussions took place via phone
and in person, and the petitioner/complainant was viewed
with suspicion, causing considerable harm to his social
reputation and tarnishing his prestige.
3. The accused also filed false complaints against the
petitioner/complainant on the Honorable Chief Minister of
Uttar Pradesh’s Lucknow portal, the Prime Minister’s portal,
6 of 15

and several other platforms. In response, the Meerut Division
authorities requested an investigation report from the Chief
Medical Officer, Meerut, regarding these complaints. This
information spread throughout the medical community,
causing significant defamation and disgrace to the petitioner/
complainant. However, after a thorough investigation, the
Chief Medical Officer found the complaints by the accused to
be baseless and untrue and gave a clean chit to the
petitioner/complainant. The letter from the Chief Medical
Officer, Meerut, to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, dated
13-06-2023, is attached regarding this matter.
4. The actual facts of the case are as follows: Snigdha’s
husband, Udit Arya’s paternal aunt, Mrs. Anita Jain, wife of
Mr. A.K. Jain, is the petitioner/complainant’s younger
brother’s wife. Therefore, there are personal relations
between the petitioner/complainant and Udit Arya’s family.
Snigdha’s father, Vipin Kumar Malhotra (accused), had some
issues during pregnancy, and Dr. Gitanjali Bendre, who was
treating her, was not available that day. She had prescribed
some medicines over the phone, but the spellings were
incorrect and thus unreadable. Subsequently, on 10-09-2022,
Udit Arya contacted the petitioner/complainant to obtain the
correct spellings of those medicines prescribed for Snigdha
and informed him about her condition. Knowing this, on 10-
09-2022, the petitioner/complainant wrote the correct
spellings of the medicines prescribed over the phone by Dr.
Gitanjali on his letterhead, which was also his duty as a
physician. These medicines were not harmful to the patient in
any way.
5. It is stated that the petitioner/complainant later became
aware that on 19-09-2022, Snigdha contracted dengue. Due
to no fetal heartbeat being detected on ultrasound, she was
initially admitted to S.D.S. Hospital and, on the same day,
transferred to Nutirma Hospital. There, her husband Udit
Arya and two of Udit's friends arranged a jumbo pack of
platelets due to Snigdha’s very low platelet count. However,
the fetus could not be saved. On 20-09-2022, Snigdha gave
birth to a stillborn baby and remained admitted to Nutirma
Hospital until 25-09-2022. After being discharged on 25-09-
2022, Snigdha was taken by her parents to their home in
Defence Colony, where she continuously remained unwell
from 25-09-2022 until 22-10-2022, when she tragically
passed away. Throughout this entire period, from 25-09-2022
7 of 15

to 22-10-2022, Snigdha did not receive proper medical
treatment, which possibly led to an increasing infection in her
body.
6. It is stated that Vipin Kumar Malhotra and his family
members, Mrs. Beenu Malhotra and Mohit Malhotra, with
the intention of exerting undue pressure and blackmail, filed
a case against Udit Arya, his family members, and the
petitioner/complainant’s brother’s wife, Anita Jain, at the
Gangangar police station under Sections 498A and 304B of
the Indian Penal Code, alleging dowry death due to
Snigdha’s illness-related natural demise. In this case, all the
accused were granted anticipatory bail by the honorable
court, which recognized Snigdha’s death as natural. Copies
of the bail orders and the First Information Report (FIR) are
attached. Notably, Snigdha’s post-mortem report indicates
sepsis (septicemia) as the cause of death. The post-mortem
report is attached.
7. It is stated that, keeping in mind the above incidents and
with malice, Vipin Kumar Malhotra, Mrs. Beenu Malhotra,
and Mohit Malhotra have been making false and defamatory
statements, holding press conferences, and filing complaint
petitions against the petitioner/complainant to blackmail and
defame him and his family, causing severe damage to the
petitioner/complainant’s reputation and dignity in society. As
a result, the petitioner/complainant has suffered serious
defamation and harm to his reputation. Moreover, he has
endured severe mental distress due to having to continuously
explain these matters to members of society and
acquaintances.
8. It is stated that the accused, Vipin Kumar Malhotra, filed a
false case against the petitioner and others at the A.C.J.M.
Court No. 5, Meerut, through petition number 1141/2023
(Vipin Kumar Malhotra vs. Udit Arya and others) under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered
at Civil Lines police station. For investigation, the Civil
Lines police visited the petitioner’s house and clinic, causing
great humiliation and defamation before the colony and the
entire nursing home staff. Later, the court dismissed Vipin
Kumar Malhotra’s petition. Subsequently, Vipin Kumar
Malhotra filed a criminal supervision petition number
543/2023 before the District and Sessions Judge, Meerut,
which was dismissed by the Court of Special Judge
8 of 15

(Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut, on 12-12-2023.
Copies of both orders are attached.
9. It is stated that Vipin Kumar Malhotra, Mrs. Beenu
Malhotra, and Mohit Malhotra are continuously defaming
and maligning the petitioner/complainant by exerting undue
pressure without any cause, solely for the purpose of
blackmail. By doing so, they have committed an offense
under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In the interest of
justice, it is necessary that they be punished.
Therefore, it is humbly requested that a summons be issued
under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the
accused Vipin Kumar Malhotra, Mrs. Beenu Malhotra, and
Mohit Malhotra, and that they be punished.”
12 . The statement of opposite party no.2 recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C. is as under:
“I have been practicing medicine for the past 44 years. There
is a hospital named 'Giripush Arogya Hospital' located in
Adarsh Nagar. The opposing parties are members of the same
family with whom I had a long-standing relationship. The
opposition used to visit our home frequently. The daughter of
Opponent No. 1, Snigdha, was being treated by Dr.
Geetanjali, who also prescribed some medicines. However,
Udit Arya was unable to read or understand those medicines
and requested that the prescriptions be written clearly on
official letterhead. In good faith, I wrote the medicines
clearly on my letterhead for Udit Arya.
After some time, due to adverse circumstances such as
dengue, the daughter of Opponent No. 1 passed away, an
event unrelated to my treatment. Nonetheless, on July 9,
2023, the opposing parties published a statement in the daily
newspaper Dainik Jagran alleging that my prescriptions
contributed to their daughter's death and accusing me of
assisting the accused in this case. They also claimed that I
conspired with the accused and provided those medicines
solely to help the accused obtain bail. These allegations
appeared in the Meerut edition of the national newspaper
Dainik Jagran (page 6) on July 9, 2023.
This publication has tarnished my reputation and harmed my
standing in the community. I reported the matter to the police
station, but no action was taken. As a result of their
9 of 15

complaints, the police have repeatedly summoned me
unnecessarily, causing mental harassment.
I have nothing further to add.”
13 . It is an undisputed fact that a First Information Report, Case
Crime No. 310 of 2022, under Sections 304B, 498A I.P.C., and Section
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered against Udit Arya,
Rakesh Arya, Madhu Arya, and Shubham Arya at Police Station Ganga
Nagar, District Meerut. After investigation, charge-sheet No. 185 of
2023 was filed on 08.08.2023. Subsequently, the applicant, being
unsatisfied with the said investigation, approached the higher authority.
The D.G.P., vide his letter No. DG Meerut (19) 2023/4419 dated
08.08.2023, transferred the investigation to District Bulandshahr. The
Circle Officer (Crime), Bulandshahr, commenced the investigation and
filed a charge-sheet under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. read with Section
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Udit Arya, Rakesh Arya, and
Madhu Arya. The accused, Udit Arya, filed Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 4560 of 2023, and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
allowed the said application vide order dated 03.05.2023.
14 . On 09.07.2023, a news article titled "Dr. Akshay's Prescription
Used; Accused Granted Bail in Snigdha Case" was published on Page
No. 6 of Dainik Jagran, Meerut Edition. A copy of the said news item is
annexed with this application as Annexure-7, the English transcribed
form of which is as follows:
“Dr. Akshay's Prescription Used; Accused Granted Bail in
Snigdha Case
Jagran Correspondent, Meerut - All five accused in the
dowry harassment case involving Snigdha have been granted
anticipatory bail by the court. During the bail hearing, the
accused stated that Snigdha was taken to Dr. Akshay Jain
from September 8 to September 19, 2023. His prescription
was also submitted to the court. However, Snigdha's father
claimed that despite her illness, she was not given proper
treatment, which ultimately led to her death. Medicines were
10 of 15

provided only after a phone conversation with Dr. Geetanjali
Bora Bendre.
Following the accused's presentation of Dr. Akshay Jain's
prescription in court, the deceased's father filed an
application to register a case against the doctor. It has been
alleged that the prescription was fabricated and submitted to
the court through collusion. CO Sadar Dehat Devesh Kumar
stated that the prescription of Dr. Akshay Jain is currently
under investigation as per the court's orders. A charge sheet
is being prepared against all the accused in this case. Dr.
Jain has confirmed that a response regarding this matter has
been submitted to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) on his
behalf.”
15 . A perusal of the said news article reveals that the source was the
Jagran Correspondent, Meerut, and it is general news, commonly
reported in other crime reports. The article does not state anywhere that
it was published by the applicant or his family members. Furthermore,
the applicant (father of the deceased Snigdha) has filed an application in
the Court regarding the involvement of opposite party no. 2 in the
dowry case.
16 . After filing the complaint, opposite party no. 2 had himself
examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and also examined Jamuna Das
(PW-1), Bilal Rizvi (PW-2), and Uttam Saini (PW-3). In the statements
of opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of witnesses under
Section 202 Cr.P.C., it is not proved that the applicant was responsible
for publishing the said news article. In other words, it can be concluded
that opposite party no. 2 has not produced any evidence before the
concerned Court that the applicant was responsible for the publication
of the said news article.
17 . As for the complaints made by the applicant to the Chief Minister
Portal, Prime Minister Portal, etc., the sole allegation of opposite party
no. 2 is that these complaints were filed by the applicant with malicious
intent to harm the reputation. Opposite party no. 2 has admitted in the
complaint itself and in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that the
11 of 15

applicant's daughter was married to Udit Arya. She was receiving
treatment from Dr. Geetanjali, who prescribed some medicine; however,
Udit Arya was unable to read or understand the medicines.
Subsequently, at Udit Arya's request, opposite party no. 2 wrote the
medicine on his letterhead.
18 . It is also an admitted fact that the applicant registered a First
Information Report as Case Crime No. 310 of 2022 against Udit Arya
(son-in-law), Rakesh Arya, Madhu Arya, and Shubham Arya under
Sections 304B, and 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act at Police Station Ganga Nagar, District Meerut. After
investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C., and
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed. Being unsatisfied
with the investigation, the applicant approached higher authorities.
Subsequently, the D.G.P., U.P., vide his letter No. DG Meerut (19)
2023/4419 dated 08.08.2023, transferred the investigation to District
Bulandshahr. The extracts of the said report are as follows:
“Senior Superintendent of Police, District Bulandshahr,
Kindly be informed that on 23.10.2023, the complainant Mr.
Vipin Kumar Malhotra, son of the late Shadillal, resident of
B-28 Defense Colony, Ganganagar, Meerut, filed case no.
310/2022 at Ganganagar Police Station, District Meerut,
under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the following
accused:
1. Udit Arya (husband), son of Rakesh Ary
2. Mrs. Madhu (mother-in-law), wife of Rakesh Ary
3. Shubham Arya (brother-in-law), son of Rakesh Ary
4. Rakesh Arya (father-in-law), son of Omprakash Arya,
residents of 105 Kornak Colony, Roorkee Road, Meeru
5. Anita Jain (aunt), wife of Dr. Ajay Jain, resident of B-13
Adarsh Nagar, Begambagh, Lalkurti Police Station, District
Meerut,
alleging that the complainant’s daughter, Snigdha, was
demanded 6 million rupees and a vehicle and was subjected
12 of 15

to harassment. Due to the harassment, she had a
miscarriage. On 21.10.2022, she was assaulted and locked in
a room. When the complainant brought his daughter home,
her condition worsened, and she died while being taken to
the hospital. A registration was made regarding her death,
and the investigation has been conducted by me, the Area
Crime Officer.
During the investigation of the above case, Dr. Akshay Jain,
son of the late Mr. Girilal Jain, resident of B-13 Adarsh
Nagar, Lalkurti, District Meerut, stated that the medicine
prescribed for Snigdha by Dr. Geetanjali Bendre was not
understood by the medical store owners; therefore, Udit Arya
approached Dr. Akshay Jain to obtain the correct spelling of
the medicine or to have the prescription made. However,
contrary to this statement, the examination of the Call Detail
Record (CDR) of Udit Arya’s phone number 8454045412
reveals that Udit Arya did not visit Dr. Akshay Jain on
10.09.2022 to get the prescription made because the location
of Udit Arya’s phone was not near Dr. Akshay Jain’s
Giripushp Arogya Hospital, and there was no phone
conversation between Udit Arya and Dr. Akshay Jain. There
is a contradiction between Dr. Akshay Jain’s statement and
the location and call logs in Udit Arya’s CDR. Therefore, it
appears that the prescription was fabricated by Dr. Akshay
Jain to benefit the above-named accused in this case. Since
Mrs. Anita Jain, wife of Dr. Ajay Jain, resident of B-13
Adarsh Nagar, Begambagh, Lalkurti Police Station, District
Meerut, is the sister of accused Rakesh Arya, son of
Omprakash Arya, and the wife of Dr. Ajay Jain, the younger
brother of Dr. Akshay Jain, Anita Jain appears to be involved
in the false/fake prescription prepared by Dr. Akshay Jain on
10.09.2022.
Therefore, your honor is requested to kindly take action
against Mr. Akshay Jain, son of the late Mr. Girilal Jain, and
Mrs. Anita Jain, wife of Dr. Ajay Jain, residents of B-13
Adarsh Nagar, Lalkurti, District Meerut.”
19 . The Investigating Officer obtained the call detail report of Udit
Arya and opposite party no.2 and found that Udit Arya did not visit Dr.
Akshay Kumar Jain on 10.09.2022 to obtain the prescription because
Udit Arya's location was not found near Dr. Akshay Kumar Jain's
hospital. Furthermore, there was no telephonic conversation between
13 of 15

Udit Arya and opposite party no. 2. The Investigating Officer found that
it appears the prescription was prepared by opposite party no.2 on
10.09.2022.
20 . The allegations made by the applicant in the complaints are duly
supported by the said investigation. Moreover, it cannot be said that the
complaints were filed with the intention to harm the reputation of
opposite party no.2.
21 . The principles governing the summoning of an accused in a
criminal case, as well as the parameters for quashing criminal
proceedings, are well-settled. Summoning an accused in a criminal case
is a serious matter, and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
matter of course. It is not necessary that the complainant bring only two
witnesses to support allegations in the complaint to initiate criminal
proceedings. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must
reflect an application of mind to the facts of the case and the applicable
law. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on
record and determine whether any offence is prima facie established.
The Magistrate may even personally put questions to the complainant
and witnesses to elicit answers to ascertain the truthfulness of the
allegations and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by
any or all of the accused.
22 . When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal
proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, the Court is duty-bound to examine
the matter with greater care. It will not suffice for the Court to consider
only the averments made in the FIR/complaint to ascertain whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed. In
frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court has a duty to consider
additional circumstances emerging from the case record, beyond the
averments, and, if necessary, with due care and circumspection, to read
between the lines. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
14 of 15

CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court need not restrict itself
to the stage of the case but is empowered to consider the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected during the investigation.
23 . Based on the material available on record, there is no evidence to
prove that the applicant was responsible for the publication of the said
news article. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the
complaints were made with malicious intent to harm the reputation of
Dr. Akshay Kumar Jain. Additionally, opposite party no. 2 has not filed
any evidence to prove that the applicant had conducted any press
conference.
24 . Considering the overall facts and circumstances, it can be said
that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The learned
Magistrate passed the summoning order in a very casual manner and did
not properly consider the facts of this case.
25 . Accordingly, the application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is
allowed . The summoning order dated 06.04.2024 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1,
District Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 907 of 2024, under Section 500
I.P.C., Police Station Lalkurti, District Meerut, along with the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case, as well as the revisional
order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No. 3, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 419 of 2024, are hereby
quashed .
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
May 15, 2026
Vijay
15 of 15
Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad