BJP and was offering bribes for the purpose of defaming Sh. Dhruv Rathee. Taking note of the same, the argument that the petitioner was not aware that the contents of the material retweeted by him would cause harm to the reputation of the respondent no. 2 cannot be appreciated at the stage of summoning itself, since the adjudication with regard to determination of whether the petitioner herein had acted responsibly or not, and whether as a political person of a long standing, he could have had the knowledge that the content being posted by him would cause defamation or reputational injury to the respondent, is a matter of trial. 86. Further if, the petitioner herein wants to justify his act by any of the defences or exceptions, it can be done only at an appropriate stage of trial and not when he has just received summons and where prima facie, the case does not fall under any of the exceptions of Section 499 of IPC. Also, the question regarding an intentional injury or unintentional injury to a complainant‟s reputation by an accused can only be decided during the course of trial by leading evidence by both the parties. To prove actual defamatory injury by impairment of reputation cannot be decided at the threshold of summoning, when only a prima facie view of the matter is to be taken by the learned Magistrate. 87. The original author of the defamatory content i.e. Sh. Dhruv Rathee alongwith another accused i.e. Sh. Mahavir Prashad are already accused in Ct. Cases 5786/2018, which is pending trial before the learned MM-01, South-East, Saket Court, Delhi. 88. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 Further, whether it was his duty or not, as a political person of CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 47 of 50