The court has the power to review and set aside orders if they are found to be illegal or based on no evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. The petition has been filed under Section 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:-

'I. Call for the photocopies/scanned records of CRR/630/2019 and Ct. Case/18737/2018 and quash/set aside in its entirety the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi passed in CRR No: 630/2019 and restore the Summoning order dated 30.08.2019 of the Ld. Magistrate, THC, Delhi passed in Ct. Case/18737/2018 vide which he had summoned Accused No: I, 2 and 3 for the offence of defamation punishable u/s 500 IPC. II. Stay in the interim the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, THC passed in CRR/630/2019 against Accused No: 2-Shyamal Mukherjee and Accused No: 3- Ms. Nandini Chatterjee who are yet to be served Summons issued vide order dated 30.08.2019 of the Ld. Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in Ct. Case/18737/2018. III. Direct the Ld. Magistrate, THC, Delhi to re-serve forthwith the Summons to Accused No: 2 and 3 in Ct.Case/18737/2018 by all permissible modes including by email and whatsapp and to proceed further in accordance with the law. IV. Pass such other orders as it may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case'.

2. The brief facts as are relevant for the disposal of the present petition may be noted in brief. The petitioner had been in employment of the respondent No.2/ M/s Pricewaterhousecoopers Private Limited as a Chief Finance Officer (CFO). His case is that he had found certain irregularities in the method of working of the respondent No.2 and when he highlighted the same, he was sidelined in the organization and finally he was forced to resign on 31st December, 2011. However, the respondent No.2 issued a Letter of Termination on 27th February, 2012 in which, according to the petitioner, defamatory allegations were made.

3. He submits that his stand stood vindicated in view of subsequent events leading to enquiry being made by various authorities including the Enforcement Directorate, the Income Tax authorities etc., to whom the Supreme Court also had issued directions for time bound investigations. Thus, he was in the capacity of a whistle blower. However, according to the petitioner, he has been targeted by the respondents and subjected to defamation and litigation.

4. The instant petition arises out of a complaint that the petitioner filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tiz Hazari Court on 22nd October, 2018 alleging that the respondents No. 2,3 and 4, being accused No.1,2 and 3 in the complaint, had committed the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 IPC.

5. The petitioner has alleged the commission of the said offence on the basis of two publications. One publication was on 25th July, 2017 in the Economic Times whereas the second publication was on 3rd August, 2017 in the Outlook Magazine. The learned MM vide order dated 30th August, 2019 summoned the respondents No.2 to 4 to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC holding that the allegations made by the complaint 'prima facie constituted the said offence having been committed' by the respondents No.2 to 4.

6. On being so summoned the respondent No.2 filed a criminal revision being No.630/2019 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central, Tiz Hazari. Vide the order dated 7th October, 2020 impugned in the present petition, the learned ASJ concluded that there was no material on the basis of which the Trial Court could have summoned any of the accused persons and even if two of them were not before the court, by exercise of the powers vested under Section 397/399 Cr.P.C., for reasons given in the impugned order, the summoning order was set aside in its entirety.

7. The petitioner who has appeared in person has filed detailed written submissions which has also been reiterated orally before this Court.

8. The petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Court had erred in