Defamation by legal notice requires proof of publication to a third party; absent that, criminal proceedings cannot stand.

Defamation under Section 499 IPC requires an imputation made or published to a person other than the complainant, and publication means communication to a third party. A legal notice sent only to the complainant's office address was insufficient because there was no material showing that any employee or other person actually opened, read, or received it. On that basis, the essential ingredient of publication was not established and the defamation allegation could not be sustained. The court also noted that the accused resided outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction and that no Section 202 CrPC inquiry was shown before issuance of process, reinforcing that the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the legal notice sent by the petitioner constituted defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the criminal proceedings could be sustained in the absence of proof of publication and the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Defamation under Section 499 requires making or publishing an imputation concerning a person with the intent to harm reputation, and publication in law means communication to someone other than the person concerned. The allegations showed that the notice was sent to the complainant's office address, but there was no material to show that any employee or third party actually opened, read, or received the contents. In the absence of proof of publication to anyone other than the addressee, the essential ingredient of defamation was not made out. The Court also noted that the petitioner resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate and that no inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was shown to have been conducted before issuance of process.

Conclusion: The proceedings did not disclose the offence of defamation against the petitioner and were liable to be quashed.

---