High Court · 2025

AND '1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. 2 P B.S. Charles, S/o P. Shouraiah, Special Magistrate, Plot No. 25, TSSEB Engineers Colony, Prakash Nagar, Upparpalli, Rajendranagar, R.R.District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.200 of 2019 on the file of XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, R.R. District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 lN CRL.P.NO.2543 oF 2019: Petition under Section 482 of C:.P-C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.200 of 2019 on the file of XIV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, R.R. District, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. LA. NO: 2OF 2019 lN CRL.P.N 0.2543 0F 2019: Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay passed in Crl.P.No.2543 of 2019 before this Hon'ble Court and the same was dismissed. This Petition c;oming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VEDULA SRlN|VAS,AdVocateforthePetitionerandSriM'VIVEKANDAREDDY,Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and STi T ANIRUDH REDD, Advocate for:he Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI .'USTICE K.SURDNDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.2543 OF 2019 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.2OO of 2019 on the lile of XIV Additional Metropolital Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, for the offence of defamation under Section 5OO ot the Indian Penal Code.

2. The 2"d respondent who worked as Senior Civil Judge ald retired as Additional District Judge, lodged a private complaint against the petitioner before the Magistrate Court.

3. From the complaint, the defamatory publication is extracted as follows: "In fact P.B.S.Charless having two sons one by name Vinod and another Vikram. When in matrimonial matter of Vinod some disputes was arose between the wife of Vinod and his wife Nuthalapati Priyanka, D/o.Nuthalapati Prasad, my client was not cooperate as per the demand of P.B.S.Charless in settlement of above said dispute in respect of his son Vinod, he developed bore grudge against my client and hatched a plan to harass my client and used to No. 1 of your client as a tools and P.B.S.Charless with al 2 intention to dissolve the marriage betweer:. No. 1 of your client and my client, he want to remarqr tc No. 1 of your client with his son i.e., Vinod who was divorced and he successfully made No. 1 of your client want,lnly desert my ilient and she has been separately living l.rom my client since 2O14 "

4. The said rvords were written in the notice sent by the accused as a reply to the: notice sent by accused's wife.

5. The only g;round raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reply to the legal notice is a private communication between husband and wife and it will not amount to publication as required under Secti on 499 of IPC, so as to rnake it punishable under Section 500 ofIPC.

6. The Honcurable Supreme Court in Mohd.Abdulla Khan o, Prakash I{ t held that, whether the publicat.ion amounted to defamation or not can be decided after recording the evidence at the time of trial, and the same cannot be a subject m.atter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. '(20181 l supreme Court cases 615 3

7. karned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of High Court of Delhi in Rc:m Jethmo,lo;ni o. Subramaniam Sutamg2.

8. Section 499 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows: I \ '499. Defamation.--Whoeuer bg words either spoken. or intended to be read, or bg signs or bg ui.sible representatiotts, makes or publi.shes ang imputation concerning anA person intending to harm, or knowing or hauing rea.son to belieue that such imputation utill harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the ca,ses hereinafter excepted, to defame that person."

9. Defamation occurs when imputation is made concerning any person in a manner that is likely to be read. It is not the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the imputation made, falls within any of the exceptions under Section 499 of IPC. Reply to the legal notice was sent to the counsel who is an advocate and the reply notice would be read by the counsel and probably by the other associates also. It is not a communication directly addressed to the wife to say that such a reply does not amount to any publication intended to be read by others. Since the reply to the notice, in which the alleged imputation was made was sent to an advocate, who is a t zooelau 1 oru eo: 4 third person, the proceedings cannot be quashed. It is for the trial Court to decicle on the facts of the case, whether the offence of defamation is rnade out or not.

10. Accordin;dy, Criminal Petition is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// ASSIST Sd/- T. JAYASREE T REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER l i To, 'l The XIV Additional Metropolitan lvlagistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, RR.Disirict

2. The Station House Officer, Thulluru police Station, Guntur District. 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SFll VEDULA SRtN|VAS Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SR T ANIRUDH REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two CD Copies RC/gh / e HIGH COURT DATED: 1210212025 ORDER CRLP.No.2543 of 2019 t{ t.- S Tr IC: 1 q 5 17 Alil ?lS (' ?_ t {-.t r, ,/,,' , / , ACCORDINGLY, CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED