The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction for trying cases of defamation is determined based on the place where the offense occurred, as per the provisions of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C'), the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 20.07.2009, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi arising out of Criminal Complaint No. 4213/1 of 2008, titled as "Siddharth Sanwaria v. P.C. Sanghi", for the offences punishable under Sections 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant/respondent i.e. Sidharth Sanwaria that on 16.07.2008, the petitioner herein had filed a false complaint against him before the Chairman of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh causing loss and injury to the reputation of respondent/complainant. Subsequently, the Chairman of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana had forwarded the complaint to the General House of Bar Counsel for taking necessary action, however, no act of misconduct committed by the respondent/complainant was found. Furthermore, it is alleged that on 22.11.2008, the petitioner had made a phone call to one Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal i.e. CW-2, a resident of New Delhi, to help and assist him in order to cancel the complainant's Bar Licence because he had defrauded multiple people in Chandigarh. After the conversation, Sh. Ashwani Aggarwal had contacted the respondent/complainant and had narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter, on 03.12.2008, CW-2 had written a letter to the respondent seeking clarification on the allegations levelled against him by the petitioner and he had further stated that he would refrain from giving further work to the respondent until proper clarification is provided. As a result, the respondent/complainant had lodged a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court, Delhi in December, 2008, alleging that the petitioner had published defamatory statements defaming the respondent/complainant on various occasions.

3. Learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 20.07.2009 had issued summons against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the summoning order is reproduced as under:

"...The Complainant has examined to witnesses in support of his case. CW-1 Complainant himself and CW-2 is Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank. CW-2 basically deposed that after he spoke and met the respondent who made the allegation against the complainant he withdraw professional work from the complainant. However, later on after clarifying the matter and relishing that the complaint against the complainant made by the respondent were baseless, the witness restored the work assigned to the complainant. I have carefully gone through the records of the case. In fact on the basis of the evidence and records of the case prima face case of summoning the respondent U/s 499/500 IPC is made out: Let accused be summoned for 29.10.2009 on filing of PF..."

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate deserves to be quashed on the grounds that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that it lacked the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. It is submitted that even as per the case of the respondent, the entire cause of action leading to the filing of present complaint arose in Chandigarh which is outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate in Delhi. It is stated that the present case is not maintainable in Delhi, and if at all the respondent was aggrieved, he should have filed an appropriate complaint in Chandigarh where the actual cause of action allegedly arose.

6. The respondent by way of written submissions and reply filed before this Court contents that the petitioner had made defamatory statements against the respondent, his family members, friends and clients. It is also submitted that the petitioner had caused huge