CRLP/2211/2011 of Smt. Sobha Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2012

ORDER:-

The petitioners, who are A.1 to A.5 and A.7 and A.8 in C.C.No.274 of2008 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Nampally, Hyderabad, filed the present petitions to quash the proceedings inthe above Calendar Case. It is alleged that A.1 developed grudge againstthe complainant, framed incorrect documents and fabricated false evidenceby misusing his official position to meet his illegal and unethical demands;that A.2 complained to him that the complainant shouted on A.2 and wantedto kill A.2; that A.3 has also fabricated a false report in order to help A.1; thatA.4 and A.5 simply obeyed the orders of A.1 in his personal capacity andgave a report; that A.7 simply stated that there is no written complaint and A.7and A.8 aided the offence of defamation.

2. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Defamation, which is an offence under Section 500 IPC, is definedunder Section 499 IPC. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to beread, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes anyimputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or havingreason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of suchperson, is said, to defame that person.

4. The entire basis for filing the complaint under Section 500 IPC is theinitiation of the departmental proceedings. In the sworn statement of thecomplainant, several allegations are levelled against A.1 that he is askinghim to donate money for Shepard society; that he was asking him to stand assurety for his loans at Sri Ram Chit Funds; that A.1 was pressurizing him toarrange colleague women and indirectly sometimes asking him to arrangehis wife to him and A.1 did not allow him to execute his transfer order as hewas not co-operating with his immoral, illegal and financial irregularities. Itis further stated that on 31.05.2007, A.1 concocted story by lodging complaintto him as if he received information from A.2 by mentioning that he would murder A.2; four witnesses were cited as eyewitnesses to the incident; all areinterested witnesses and supporters to A.1; that A.1 issued a memo dated02.06.2007 calling upon the complainant to give explanation giving ten daystime; that A.1 prepared a report dated 01.06.2007 by adding so many spicesin his report and sent to Joint Managing Director, Hyderabad; that withoutcalling any explanation, he was suspended; that in view of the suspension helost his status in the society, financial loss and loss of education to hischildren.

5. A perusal of the averments in the sworn statement, there are noimputations so as to defame the complainant, either verbal or visible, madeby way of publication with an intention to harm the reputation of thecomplainant. It is not in dispute before this Court that the enquiry officerfound the complainant guilty of the charges levelled against him in thedepartmental proceedings. Accepting the report of the enquiry officer,disciplinary authority imposed punishment of ‘stoppage of one increment withcumulative effect’. Challenging the same, an appeal has been filed beforethe appellate authority. Appellate authority having accepted that the chargesare proved, confirmed the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Now that order is under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.9752 of 2012.Unless a finding has been given that the charges levelled against thecomplainant are baseless and they are created for the purpose of maligningthe complainant with a view to harm his reputation by initiation of thedepartmental proceedings, ordinarily it does not give rise to a cause of actionfor delinquent officer to lodge a complaint saying that the documents arefabricated with a view to injure him. Therefore, the entire sworn statement ofthe complainant and also the statements of witnesses 1 to 4 are accepted astrue and correct at this stage, they would not disclose the offence ofdefamation. If at all, the statements of these witnesses, at best, woulddisclose that the reputation of the complainant was affected due tosuspension. Therefore, no prima facie offence under Section 500 IPC ismade out.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed quashing theproceedings in C.C.No.274 of 2008 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, against A.1 to A.5 and A.7 and A.8 only. However, any observation is made only for the disposal of the presentapplications. In view of the fact that a suit for damages is also pending, anyobservation made cannot be construed as a finding of this Court.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these criminal petitionsshall stand closed.

31.12.2012Vjl

___________________

JUSTICE K.C. BHANU