IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Unless this Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised in a particular case to correct the mistake committed by the revisional court while acting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and that too after learned Additional Sessions Judge had declined to interfere in the matter, this court cannot enter the arena of appreciation of evidence.
(2) Act of defamation does not come within the purview of official duty and, therefore, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required.

JUDGMENT

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.—By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner Mr. Jai Prakash Sharma has assailed the order dated 06.11.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Succinctly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint against Manoj Pant, SHO P.S. Preet Vihar, ASI Rajbir Singh, Constable Umed Singh and Constable Sorveer Singh for the offence under Sections 341/342/379/365/506/ 323/463/469/471/34 IPC on the allegations, inter alia, that during the last parliamentary election period, brother of complainant namely Ramesh Pandit who was the councilor was making arrangements for organizing a meeting which was scheduled to take place on 04.05.2009 at Chandra Nagar Chowk, Delhi. Tables, chairs and pipes were being installed at the place of meeting. At about 11:00 a.m. Manoj Pant, SHO, P.S. Preet Vihar came and directed to remove the pipes and change the place of the meeting and further directed them to install tables, chairs and pipes covering a specific area in accordance with law. The said SHO gave these directions at least 3-4 times. Suddenly, around 3-4 p.m. the proposed accused persons along with some other police officials came at Chander Nagar chowk near Sai Mandir where the meeting was to took place and without any reason started lifting tables, chairs and started putting them in their vehicle. The brother of the petitioner namely Ramesh Pandit objected to the same, on hearing which Mr. Pant, started beating him. The complainant who was present at the spot raised an objection which resulted in him being also beaten by all the accused persons. The police officials took the complainant and his brother in a police gypsy and took them to the police station where they were taken to a room and were beaten again by the said four persons during the course of which a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) was also snatched from the complainant/ petitioner.

3. On the said complaint, the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, Delhi called for the status report from the SHO, P.S. Preet Vihar who submitted a report dated 06.02.2010 to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. The complainant went to common hall of Karkardooma Courts along with his colleagues. Since he was not having spectacles he requested Mr. Ashwani Bhatia, Advocate and Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate to read the status report. In the status report the proposed accused had used a very derogatory and defamatory language for the complainant that “Sh. Ramesh Pandit and his brother Jai Prakash Sharma are having seven criminal cases of riot, assault, obstructing and assaulting public servants etc. against their names. Sh. Jai Prakash Sharma is not a practicing lawyer, he is into property dealing business and not enjoying very fair reputation in the locality”. Again in the last para of the report very undignified language was used. After hearing the same the petitioner felt very shocked and ashamed. The reputation of the petitioner has been lowered in the eyes of his colleagues.

5. Consequently, the petitioner/ complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 499/500 IPC against Inspector Manoj Pant (proposed accused) on the allegations, inter alia, that the imputations of the accused are totally scandalous, defamatory and per se derogatory and slanderous in nature and were made by the Mr. Pant with the intention of harming the reputation or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint, adduced pre-summoning evidence and examined himself on oath before the learned metropolitan Magistrate on 29.04.2010 as CW-1. In his statement the petitioner has