Judgment Heard Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Wachasundar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. The applicant is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No.4842 of 1999 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola. The applicant is a public servant and was working as Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office, Akola. The complainant Mr. Deshpande was frequently visiting the said office and was appearing before the Enquiry Officers on behalf of employers. It is how the applicant and the respondent / complainant knew each other very well. The grievance of the respondent is that he felt defamed by three communications addressed to him by the applicant. First communication was dated 4th June, 1998. The subject matter of the said communication is "Irregularities in the submission of the reply On behalf of M/s. Khandelwal Jewellers, Akola". Second communication was dated 5th January, 1999. Subject matter of the said communication was "Show cause notice before filing complaint u/s. 110 of Cr.P.C.". Third communication was dated 11th February, 1999. Certain defamatory statements had allegedly been made by the applicant against the respondent. On the basis of the contents of these three letters the learned Magistrate, after recording statement of the respondent on oath, issued process against the applicant to appear in the Court for answering the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The applicant moved the learned Magistrate for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that he was protected by provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended by the applicant before the learned Magistrate that since prior sanction of the competent authority was not obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the complaint was not maintainable. The applicant prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The learned Magistrate, it appears, did not decide the said application and it remained pending for quite a long time. The applicant, therefore, moved this Court for quashing the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. This Court, while disposing of the petition of the applicant directed the Magistrate to dispose of the pending application. 6. The learned Magistrate refused to grant any relief to the applicant. The applicant, therefore, moved this Court for quashing the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. This Court, while disposing of the petition of the applicant directed the Magistrate to dispose of the pending application. 6. The learned Magistrate refused to grant any relief to the applicant. He was of the view that the applicant cannot claim protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant, therefore, moved this Court again under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court directed the applicant to approach the Sessions Court for appropriate relief. The applicant, accordingly, moved the Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also refused to grant any relief to the applicant. It is how the applicant is before this Court again by way of filing application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the first place there is no defamatory material in any of the communications. Secondly, there is no publication of the communication and therefore, it did not amount to defamation. Thirdly, the communication was sent by the applicant to the respondent in discharge of his official duties as Enforcement Officer working in the Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office. He, therefore, could not have been prosecuted without sanction of the competent authority. It is submitted by Mr. Sundarem that the learned trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence, without sanction from the competent authority. 8. I have gone through all the three communications. As far as the contents of the communications are concerned, the first communication has used following offending words : (i) "irregularities", (ii) "evasive", (iii) "misleading", (iv) "overbearing statements", (v) "habit of taking unhealthy trends are visible in your consulting estts". Second communication contains following offending words : (i) "your unfair trade/ labour practices" and third communication contains following offending words : ".. you and your learned advocate and noted the contents and allegations made thereunder, which were leveled without introspecting the mis-deeds done in the past.." 9. In the first place, these words, per se in my opinion, will not amount to defamation. Secondly, what is pertinent to note is that there is no publication of these words, even if these words are considered to be defamatory. In the first place, these words, per se in my opinion, will not amount to defamation. Secondly, what is pertinent to note is that there is no publication of these words, even if these words are considered to be defamatory. What is necessary to be demonstrated that there was publication. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code defines "defamation", which runs as under : "499. Defamation -Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person." 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Wachasunder has submitted that the communications have been published as they have travelled from table to table and there were occasions for staff members of the office of the applicant to go through the contents of the letters / communications. This argument, in my considered opinion, needs to be dismissed, as any Government officer normally dictates to his stenographer or typist. It follows that the typist or the stenographer immediately comes to know the contents of the letter or communication. I do not think any lengthy discussion is necessary on this issue. This, obviously, will not amount to publication. The communications are directly addressed to the respondent. It was not a case of the respondent before the learned Magistrate that the communication was opened by somebody else and it was read and thereafter the contents were conveyed to the respondent. Therefore, on the material placed before the Magistrate it was not possible for the Magistrate to come to a conclusion that there was publication of the contents of the communication. Since the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code were missing, the learned Magistrate has committed an error in issuing the process for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. As far as prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, Mr. Wachasunder has submitted that the applicant had no authority to address such letters to the respondent and therefore, the letters addressed by the applicant cannot be said to be anything done in discharge of his official duties. 12. Mr. 11. As far as prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, Mr. Wachasunder has submitted that the applicant had no authority to address such letters to the respondent and therefore, the letters addressed by the applicant cannot be said to be anything done in discharge of his official duties. 12. Mr. Wachasunder has invited my attention to the fact that the applicant was working as Presentation Officer in the inquiries held in Regional Provident Fund Office and the respondent was representing employers in the said inquiries. As such, the applicant had been appearing as opponent of the respondent. The applicant, therefore, could not have addressed any letter to the respondent. Any grievance of the applicant should have been addressed to the Enquiry Officer. However, there is no material to show the applicant, statutorily or by any Rule or Regulation, was prevented from addressing any official communication to the respondent. It can be seen that most of the communications are regarding the conduct of the respondent. It is very obvious from the communications that the applicant has ventilated the grievance of the office and not his personal grievance. Whatever advise was given to the respondent was on behalf of the office of the Sub-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In the present circumstances, therefore, even if it is assumed that the applicant had travelled beyond his jurisdiction it cannot be said that the communications were not official communications. In this regard, it is necessary to be stated here that all the three communications bear official outward number of the office of the Sub-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola and the applicant has written his designation below his signature in all the communications. It is, therefore, doubtless that the communications were official communications and were sent from the desk of the office. Therefore, I am of the view that the applicant was protected by the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Before I part with the order, it is necessary to be stated here that there is nothing in any of the three communications which may prima-facie constitute an offence punishable under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. There is no communication of any nature which may amount to criminal intimidation. 13. Before I part with the order, it is necessary to be stated here that there is nothing in any of the three communications which may prima-facie constitute an offence punishable under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. There is no communication of any nature which may amount to criminal intimidation. I really fail to understand as to how the learned Magistrate could issue summons to answer the charge for the offence punishable under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. It only indicates that the Magistrate had acted mechanically without application of mind. For all these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate vide Criminal Complaint Case No.4842 of 1999 cannot be allowed to be continued as it amounts to abuse of process of law. The proceedings need to be quashed to secure the ends of justice. Hence, I pass the following order. i) The proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Criminal Complaint Case No.4842 of 1999 against the applicant shall stand quashed. ii) His bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. The application stands disposed of accordingly.