1. Respondent Vinay Kumar Sood filed a complaint against the petitioner, Standard Chartered Bank as well as four others being its employees before the Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that the petitioner Bank had been repeatedly corresponding with him and demanding a sum of Rs.3,62,373.01, being the outstanding balance amount in his credit account which he never had with the petitioner bank. During the course of correspondence petitioner sent a telegram dated 17.9.2002; contents therein were allegedly defamatory in nature. One of the official of the bank i.e. Mr. Jishant Narang (accused No.4) had telephoned his wife on 21.9.2002 intimating her that the complainant had an account with the petitioner bank (accused No.1) in which there were no outstanding dues to be claimed from the petitioner and the bank’s letters if any be ignored. On receipt of this telephone call wife of the complainant made an inquiry from friends and employees in the office of the complainant. The complainant also received telephone call at his office and business place from accused No.4 and 5, namely, Mr. Jishant Narang and Mr. Sudhanshu Gupta. Complainant found credit card statement dated 28.7.2002 and correspondence dated 19.8.2002, 17.9.2002, 21.9.2002, 4.10.2002, 7.10.2002 and other written and oral communications as defamatory and maliciously made with a view to tarnish his image, integrity, respect and reputation amongst his family, social circle, friends, his colleagues and other business circle. Complainant alleged that an offence under Section 499/500 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) was made out against the accused persons and they should be accordingly summoned and convicted.

2. After appreciating the deposition of the witnesses and the relevant documents available on record, the court found sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and accordingly issued summons for appearance of the accused persons in the court.

3. Aggrieved by the said order of summoning dated 20.12.2006, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank. It is made clear that other accused persons who happen to be the employees of the bank are not a party to this petition and have not challenged the impugned summoning order qua them.

4. Complainant had earlier filed a suit for damages against the petitioner bank on 13.11.2002 alleging that the bank had wrongly demanded payment of credit card dues from him thereby causing him mental harassment as well as the said demand lowered his image and prestige in the eyes of others including his family members. The present complaint was filed on 4.2.2003. The civil suit filed by the complainant (respondent herein) has been decreed by the Civil Judge whereby a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with costs besides future interest @ 8% per annum was awarded to the complainant. The said amount admittedly has been paid by the petitioner bank in full and final settlement of the decretal amount.

5. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that perusal of letters/correspondences addressed by the bank to the complainant would only indicate that demand was made bonafidely and the ingredients of Section 499 IPC which defines ‘defamation’ are not made out as per averments contained in the complaint. He further argued that the letters were written by the bank bonafidely. The criminal intention i.e. malice on the part of the petitioner bank to harm the reputation of the complainant which is pre-requisite of Section 499 IPC is missing in the complaint. Bank had no intention to harm the reputation of the complainant when it corresponded with him with a view to get cleared the due amount of Credit Card as per their own records. He has further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner bank falls in the 9th exception of Section 499 IPC and, therefore, the Magistrate without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the cas