BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions are taken up together as they arise out of the same complaint under Sections 499/500 IPC. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the Vice-Chancellor (Professor Vrajendra Raj mehta) and the Registrar ( Dr K. K. Panda) of the University of Delhi, as they then were. The allegation against them is that three letters written by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in this complaint were received by the Vice-Chancellor in which there was were various imputations against the conduct and character of the complainant (S. N. Singh) and that the Vice-Chancellor forwarded the letter to the Dean, Faculty of Law, and the Vice-Chancellor made an endorsement on the same by marking it as ?urgent? and added the following words:-? Please make a broad based committee involving in-charges or their nominees and few other senior people. ? a similar endorsement was made in the letter which was forwarded by the registrar. The endorsement was to the following effect:-?for immediate necessary action under intimation to this office. The information sent from Faculty of Law will be placed before the Vice-Chancellor along with this letter of the three incharges. ? ( 3 ) THE main grievance in the complaint against the petitioner is that these letters which were received by them were marked to the Dean, Faculty of law and were sent without maintaining confidentiality. They were sent as open letters and, therefore, this amounted to fresh acts of publication of the defamatory statements contained in the letters. It is, on the basis of this that the impugned summoning order dated 22. 10. 2003 was passed. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties and examining the records of the case, I find that there is no material on record to indicate that the letters, when they were sent by the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar to the Dean, faculty of Law, were not sent in a sealed cover and that they were, in fact, sent as open letters. There is the further allegation that the signatories of the letters had widely publicized the same by pasting the same on the notice board and also pasting copies thereof on the walls of the Law faculty. But, these are allegations which are not against the petitioners. There is the further allegation that the signatories of the letters had widely publicized the same by pasting the same on the notice board and also pasting copies thereof on the walls of the Law faculty. But, these are allegations which are not against the petitioners. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, I do not find any material basis for them being summoned in this case. Accordingly, the summoning order insofar as the petitioners are concerned stands set aside.