( 1 ) IN this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner-accused seeks quashing of complaint case no. 29/2001 and setting aside of Judgment dated 30/05/2001 passed in Criminal Revision No. 49/2001 by an additional Sessions Judge and order dated 2/06/2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in the said case.

( 2 ). Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are these. Respondent-complainant is an employee of Find agencies Pvt. Ltd, A-58, Nizamuddin East. On 17/01/2000 he tiled a complaint under section 500 IPC against the petitioner who is a director of the company alleging that he was issued a chargesheet dated 22/11/1999 and therein the petitioner has made defamatory statements against the respondent with intention to harm or knowing or having reasons to believe that such statements will harm his reputation. The chargesheet was got written from someone in Hindi by the petitioner and a copy thereof was also sent to Labour-cum-Conciliation officer. In para no. 12 of the complaint the statements / imputations which are alleged to be defamatory, have been set out as under :-

"pratishtan ki atithi Miss Agath Jo France se aayee aur company ke atithigrih C-38, nizamuddin East,nai Dilli me thahari hui thee/dinank 5. 9. 99 ko karib 12. 30 baje aap swayan wa aapake sath anya aparichit vyakti atithi ke kamare ke samane baith gaye, tatha anap-shanap baton karane lage/ aap sharab ke nashe me the/ aapane sharab pi rakhi thee, atithi mahodaya par phabatiya kasani shuru kar di tatha ashiilta par utaru ho gaye, aapaki ashlil harkato se atithi mahodaya bhayabhit ho gayi, tatha dar ke mare unaki mansik sthiti tanavpurn ho gayi / badi mushkil se yuwati ne aapase pichha chhudaya/ dinank 5/6 sitambar 1999 ki ratri ko punha sharab ke nashe men madhosh karib 1. 00 baje aapane Miss Agath ka darwaja khatkhataya our be wajah jaga diya tatha ashlil harkate karne lage aur batchit karne ke liye dabav data Jabki apaka wa atithi-griha par thahari hui atithi yuvati ka koi sambandh nahi tha / aapane sari ashiilta ki hade par karani chahi lekin yuvati ke virodh ke karan aapake dwara keye gaye sare prayas asafal rahen/bhayabhit yuvati ko yah Jankari nahi thi ki videsh me isprakar ki paristhitiyo ka mukabala kis prakar kiyajatshai, ka labha uthate buye aapane shararik wa mansik utpidan kiya / aapane yuvati ke bare men yktigat wa pariwar ke sambndh men puchhpachh karni chai. Yah ki aapaki uprokt harkat ke karan pratishtan ke man samman pratishta me girawat aayi hai / tatha bhavishya ke liye khatara paida ho gaya hai / aapako atlthigrah me Jane ka koi auchitya nahi tha / aapane yuvati ke man samman ki thes pahuchaya bhavishya men aap anya atithiyo par bhi kar sakate hai chuki aap sharab pine ke aadi ho chuke hai / isake alawa yuvati ke sath ashlil harkat karana tatha shararik wa mansik shoshan darshata hai ki aapake vastav men manasik santulan bighad gaya hai / aapane pratisthan ki chhvi ko kharab kiya hai / is prakar ka karmachari jo ki manochar se vyapti ho pratisthan ke liye khatara paida ho chuka hai. . . . "

( 3 ). After considering pre-summoning evidence adduced by the respondent, complaint was dismissed by the order dated 30/01/2001 by a Metropolitan Magistrate seized of the case. Relying on the decision in Balraj khanna and others vs. Moti Ram, AIR 1971 SC 1389, Criminal revision No. 49/2001 taken out against this order by the respondent was accepted by the order dated 30/05/2001 by an Additional Sessions Judge and case was remanded back to the Metropolitan Magistrate to summon the accused if a prima facie case was made out against him. By the order dated 2/06/2001 the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the offence under section 500 IPC by the metropolitan Magistrate.

( 4 ). Submission advanced by Dr. A. M. Singhvi appearing for petitioner was that assuming that the allegations made in chargesheet dated 22/11/1999 are defamatory, case being covered by Eight Exception to section 499 IPC, the two orders dated 30/05/2001 and