MOOL CHAND GARG, J:

1. By this petition the petitioner seeks interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and prays for quashing Complaint Case No. 2408/2007 and proceedings arising therefrom initiated by respondent No.1 under Section 499 IPC pending trial in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma, on account of the petitioner having allegedly circulated a letter dated 17.5.2007 addressed to Shri P.K.Misra, Member investigation CBTD in which defamatory allegations were made by the petitioner against the respondent which were also read over and discussed by a number of employees of the first respondent. As such, it was alleged that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition bearing No. 17/2008 against the summoning order inter alia on the following grounds :- (a) Defamatory letter dated 17.05.2007 was in public interest and falls under the exceptions 1, 6,8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC. (b) Respondent has not mentioned its name of employee who has received and discussed the defamatory letter. (c) The court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.

.3. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated 21.5.2008. The learned ASJ observed : 5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. In the letter dated 17.05.2007 it is mentioned that con-man of NIIT was able to purchase the concerned officers namely Sh P C Khandelwal, Sh. S. S. Rathore as well as Sh Manu Malik, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, New Delhi. It is further alleged in the said letter that cases

.of large scale evasion of income tax by NIIT Ltd and its associate companies have been virtually killed and messed up by Sh P C Khandelwal, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. In my opinion, the language used by the appellant in the said letter is defamatory. To say that the respondent company is indulging in large scale of evasion of income tax in connivance with Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax or to say that con-man of the respondent company was able to purchase the Income Tax officers are certainly defamatory. A charge of corruption/bribery leveled by the petitioner against the respondent company, in my opinion, is defamatory. The case of the petitioner does not fall under the exceptions 1, 6, 8 and 9 of Section 499 IPC. From the perusal of material placed on record of trial court, prima facie a case under Section 500 IPC is made out. 6. The letter in question is not in dispute. CW 1 in her testimony has categorically stated that the said letter was dropped at the respondents centre by the petitioner and was opened by the employee of the respondent company in the Reception Section as the envelop was not specifically marked to any one. The said letter was read over by number of employees of the respondent. Just by not mentioning the name of any employees who happened to read the said letter in the complaint as well as in the testimony of CW1 will not make the summoning order bad. 7. In the complaint as well as in the testimony of CW 1, it is stated that the said letter was dropped/dispatched by the petitioner at the respondent office which falls to the jurisdiction of Karkardooma Courts. Thus, the trial court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.

4. The petitioner by way of the present petition has once again challenged the summoning order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the ld. MM on the same grounds and facts as it was in its earlier revision petition, which was dismissed on merit by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma.

5. According to the petitioner, the impugned order summoning the petitioner to face prosecution in respect of the offences alleged against him by the first respondent is not sustainable and therefore is required to be quashed by this Court in exercise of powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document