The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of publication to constitute the offense of defamation under IPC Section 500, emphasizing the interpretation of 'publication' and 'making or publishing any imputation' under the law.

1. The petitioner was employed in Central Electronic Limited (CEL, the fourth respondent) on 10.12.1993 as Senior Technical Assistant. Over the period of his service in the said organization, he came to be promoted initially to the post of Manager (Public Relations) and later to the position of Senior Manager (Public Relations). It is his case that on account of certain efforts made by him to approach the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) in the context of some open letter that had been circulated, in his perception it not being in the interest of the company, the CMD had started to nurse personal grudge which resulted in his transfer from Sahibabad (U.P.) to Bangalore office. It is his case that on account of domestic compulsions he was constrained to make certain requests for return transfer from Bangalore but his endeavor did not bear any fruit. He alleges that against this backdrop, on 08.06.2012, he was served with a charge sheet under the cover of “an open letter”, the documents and backgrounds whereof were explained only after he had approached this court in writ jurisdiction, the charges brought against him being to the effect of he having engaged in pornography, flesh trade, etc. through the internet. It is his case that he filed first information report (FIR) No.416/2012 alleging offences under Section 66 (a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 having been committed by someone, the subject matter being the content of the material on the website on the basis of which he was facing disciplinary action. The FIR, it is his own case, did not result in any prosecution as the police filed a closure report, the matter in that regard having attained finality, the petitioner not having pursued it further.

2. The departmental charge sheet dated 08.06.2012 for disciplinary action concededly resulted in report dated 04.01.2014 of the inquiry officer that led to penalty of “censure” being imposed against him, his appeal there against having been later allowed and he being exonerated, all service benefits having been restored by order dated 07.08.2014.

3. After the said conclusion of the disciplinary action in which the private party respondents herein are stated to have participated by some role or the other, the petitioner filed the criminal complaint (CC No.9191/1/2014) alleging that by the abovementioned acts of commission and omission concerning the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him through the letter dated 08.06.2012, he had been defamed, the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) having been committed.

4. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and held pre-summoning inquiry. Concededly, in the said inquiry, the petitioner examined himself as the solitary witness (CW-1) to affirm on oath the above mentioned facts. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 01.06.2017, found no grounds to proceed further, holding that no sufficient material had been adduced to summon the respondent as accused and, thus, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

5. The petitioner challenged the above mentioned conclusion of the Metropolitan Magistrate in the court of sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by Criminal Revision Petition No.25/2017 which was dismissed by the said court, by judgment dated 09.10.2017, upholding the view taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

6. Aggrieved by the two above said consistent orders of the courts below, the present petition has been filed invoking inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the contentions being that the evidence adduced by the petitioner has been glossed over and that a proper case had been made out to show the respondents having committed the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 IPC for which they ought to have been summoned. Reliance is placed on judgment of a learned Single Judg