ORDER I I ./ I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REItrISION CASE No.O

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. K Sai Babu Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l : Mr. E. Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: Mr. K.V. Sekhar The Court made the following: ORDER : I I ./ I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REItrISION CASE No.O9 OF 2O2l ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case' is filed by the petitioner/ complainant seeking to set aside the order dated 2I.11.2O2O in S.R No. 1665 of 2O2O on the lile of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri (for short, "the trial Court").

2. Heard Mr.K.Sai Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State and Mr.K.V.Sekhar, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 married each other on 3O.O5.201O at Laxmi Gardens; that respondent No.3 is the father-in-law of petitioner and respondent No.4 is the uncle ol respondent No.2, who brought the alliance; that after marriage, differences arose between petitioner and respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 filed crimiSsl-case viz., C.C.No.598 of 2015 against the petitioner and his parents for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., alleging that the petitioner and his parents harassed her for want ,/ / of additional dowry; that the said C.C.No.59B of 2015 vide judgment dated 22.05.2018 had ended up in acquittal. Therefore, the petitionei herein submits that it was a false case filed by respondent No.2 to harass him and prayed the trial Court to take cognizance and conduct triai for the offencs under Section 5OO r /w 34 of I.P.C. But the trial Court, vide impugned order, dismissed the complaint hled by petitioner under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable Section 5OO r/w 34 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision. 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2, in her complaint, made false allegations against the petitioner herein; that the learned Judge of the trial Court did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and erroneously passed the impugned order. Relying on the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A.Ramugam Vs. Kittu alias Krishnamoorthyr and Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH Vs. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and another2 he seeks to allow tl-ris Revision. ' lzoosy r scc ror ' 120241 I Suprerne Court Cases (Cri) 512 t

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, by filing writing arguments, contended that the limitation for filing an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 195 of I.P.C. is three years from the date of a119ged statement in evidence was made. In C.C.No.59B of 2015, the case under Section 498-4 of I.P.C., the date of deposition of respondent No.2 is on 28.09.2O16 and the petition under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is to be filed on or before 27.09.2019. But the said appliiation is filed on 24.O3.2027 which is beyond the limitation period. Therefore, he states that the order passed by the trial Court is perfectly within the legal barriers and seeks to dismiss this Rerrision

6. The trial Court, vide impugned order, observed that the I main ingredients of the term defamation is that there must be certain words either spoken or intended to be read or there must be sign or visible representation or there mr-rst be publication causing imputation of any person intended to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that, such imputation will harm. Then, only such r.l,ords will be termed as defamation. In the case on hand, though there are words spoken by the evidence of PWs.l to 3 against I petitioner but those words are with regard I to the allegations and accusations made in that case and only made to prove them. There is no reason for them to make such statement with al intention to cause imputation or ilI-reputation to the petitioner. If the said depositions or oral evidence given by the witnesses before the Court is to be treated as defamation, then there arises a defamation case from each and every I compiaint or criminal case filed before the Courts. As per Bth exception of Section 499 of I.P.C. :- " Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person - It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to arry of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation". Stating thus, the trial Court rendered its order.

7. Having regard to the submissions of both the learned counsel ald upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the accusation made in good faith to any authorized person u,ould not amount to defamation. Hence, there is no perversit-1, or illegality in the impugned order and this Revision is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ) Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shail stand closed. SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER \ i(y To,

1. The ll Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad At Malkajgiri.

2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

3. One CC to Sri. K Sai Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Mr. K.V. Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies DL/PSL w ,r/ I I HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.9 ot 2021 lHE Si4 ll8 APH 2W5 t Pa; t ,1:':.1\ 'l ? t .> DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE @ a5 h