Telangana High Court
V.Manga Raju vs V.S.T.Industries Ltd., And Another on 22 November, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.11872 OF 2016
Between:
Mr.Vuppala Manga Raju ... Petitioner/Accused
And
1. V.S.T.Industries Ltd. Rep.by its Authorized
Signatory Mr.Nitesh Bakshit,
S/o.Dr.U.K.Bakshit.
2. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another.
... Respondents/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.11.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 11872 of 2016
% Dated 22.11.2023
# Mr.Vuppala Manga Raju ... Petitioner/Accused
And
$ 1. V.S.T.Industries Ltd. Rep.by its Authorized
Signatory Mr.Nitesh Bakshit,
S/o.Dr.U.K.Bakshit.
2. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another.
... Respondents/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chetluru Sreenivas
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri T.Vijaya Kumar Reddy for R1
Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 2013 CRI.L.J.1602
2. 2022 Cri.LJ.2769
3. AIR 1972 SC 2609
4. MANU/AP/0414/2015
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11872 OF 2016
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused, to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.308 of 2016 on the file of IX
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Metropolitan City
Criminal Courts at Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the
petitioner are under Sections 500 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The Company V.S.T.Industries Limited represented by its
signatory Mr.Nitesh Bakshit filed complaint for commission of the
offence of defamation by the petitioner herein. It is stated in the
complaint that the petitioner was distributor of the products of the
complainant company. Since orders were not placed, the Company
terminated the petitioner as Distributor on 01.06.2015. After
termination by the Company, the petitioner allegedly threatened the
Distributors who were subsequently appointed and also sent mails
and communication which are defamatory to the Company and its
employees. The defamation according to the Company is the
communication by the petitioner.
4. On the basis of the complaint filed, the learned Magistrate
recorded the evidence of Nitesh Bakshit and has taken cognizance
under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, only. The learned
Magistrate found that no offence was made out under Section 506 of
the Indian Penal Code. Imputations allegedly made by this petitioner
are germane for considering the case, which are extracted herein;
"a) Please let me know the contact details of VST distributors near your
areas, who are not in this group. Please post the details, so that it will
be easy to add them in our group.
b) This is a sample point which was have mentioned in this letter. I am
having all the details from day 1 to till day, how they harassed me and
tried to cheat a distributor. Nobody knows the fact what was happening.
All kinds of proofs like SMS, Mails, Call records. If I am wrong, how can I
send this kind of mail to company secretary! Also notice that some of
Distributors, including myself having differences in invoicing system and
also claims.
c) RM and CM have played this conspiracy. They blocked my account
and threatened me.
d) Good Morning Distributors, kindly send mails to provide the
agreement copies for the confirmation that you are a Distributor for the
company in your respective areas. So that it will be safe for your
business and also to your family. As we are investing huge capitals, in
future you may not face any problem like me which I am facing now also
it will help to run a healthy business, I advise you once again to take the
matter serious. These are the mail id's of higher officials, send a mail to
confirm that you are a Distributor. No need to send to all the mail ids. It
is enough to send to [email protected].
e) Kindly send mails to the mail ids provided below to get the
arrangements online itself. Please mention the areas and details which
are under your control now. So that it will be very safe and useful to you
in future.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
f) Did they give any written commitment to sale the product for a
particular price? Then why should we sale the product for fixed price!!
This shows that as a Distributor or a dealer we are maintaining a
system!!! Whereas these people are not....! Then where is the security
for our investment.
g) I understood that these people want to close this issue within there
circle! They don't want to put in the higher notice. Because they do have
some mistakes in handling RM. Really it's a shame on their part for not
allowing me sit with the Chairman and all the Board Members.
h) Even they have no guts to answer my question! It's a shame on them.
i) If at all I would like to ask President of India to pass an order to CBI to
investigate this issue. Because on only one reason, we are believing
these people without any written commitment. At the same time, they
should be perfect, dedicated, honestly with the investors. Blackmailing,
threatening, playing games with the investors are not correct. How can
you believe them. Today it happened to me, next what about you?????
j) These people should really feel shame! Unsystematic, worst persons!
Begin a big company, they don't have account statement copies.
k) They behave as if they are very sincere, but they are most worst,
nasty persons!"
l) As I am aware of all the cunning plans and as well as scams as
mentioned below of Mr.Pavan Kumar Reddy (RM), he has created this
issue personal without any reason.
. With help of Gajuwaka Distributor (Devi Agencies) at the time of price
change in the your 2012, they sold 100 cases of cigarettes in grey
market which is in the knowledge of local Market Supervisor also.
. Scams are made at the launch of every new brand (Dark Knight,
Editions etc.)
. Scam in Nellore Circle (Major Scam)
. Scam in Matches Box etc.
m) Being a Secretary to such a prestigious company, don't you feel
shame for sitting quiet without solving the issue from past 10 months.
First you should be genuine.
n) Remaining calm and not taking action on your favourite Mr.Pavan
Kumar Reddy (RM) and Mr.Sujit Kumar (CM) projects that you are also
not a perfect personality and might have involved in the scams."
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that per se there is no defamation that is caused by the
communication of the petitioner. He had grievance with the Regional
Manager-Mr.Pavan Kumar Reddy and Chief Manager-Mr.Sujit
Kumar. Nothing is stated against the company for which reason the
company cannot file the complaint.
6. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment rendered by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.R.K.Murthy v. State of A.P. through
the Public Prosecutor 1. He also relied on the Judgment of High
Court of Madras in Subhiksha Trading Services Limited and
another v. Azim H.Premji 2. Further he relied on the Judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court in G.Narasimhan, G.Kasturi and
K.Gopalan and others v. T.V.Chokkappa 3 and the Judgment
rendered by this Court in Devireddy Venkat Reddy v.
Bankarupanda Padmavathi and others 4.
2013 CRI.L.J.1602
2022 Cri.LJ.2769
AIR 1972 SC 2609
MANU/AP/0414/2015
7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent would submit that the Magistrate had given adequate
reasons for taking cognizance against the petitioner. It is a question
of trial to decide regarding the complicity or otherwise of the
petitioner since it is prima facie established that the communication
amounts to a deliberate act to defame the company.
8. As seen from the communication nowhere the petitioner had
stated anything against the Company. In fact, he refers to the
Company as a prestigious company. The petitioner had grievance
with the functioning of the employees namely Pavan Kumar Reddy-
RM and Sujith Kumar-CM.
9. It is alleged that the said persons have indulged in scams by
colluding with some distributors. The petitioner has stated that he
was cheated by the Regional Manager and Chief Manager by
entering into a conspiracy and ensured that his distributorship was
cancelled.
10. It amounts to defamation when a person either by words
spoken or intended to be read, publishes any imputation concerning
such person, knowing that such imputation will harm his
reputation.
11. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Regional Manager-
Pavan Kumar and Chief Manager-Sujith Kumar were responsible for
termination of his being distributorship and they were involved in
acts causing loss to the Company. In fact, in the communication,
the petitioner stated that the Company is a prestigious Company.
12. Specifically making aspersions against individuals in a
company and accusing such persons who are incharge of the affairs
of the Company for conducting themselves resulting in loss to the
Company, will not amount to any kind of insinuation against the
company itself. The communication is specifically directed towards
the Regional Manager-Mr.Pavan Kumar Reddy and Chief Manager-
Sujit Kumar of the Company. In the said circumstances it cannot be
said that the Company has been defamed. The grievance if any
would be in the personal capacity of the said persons namely
Mr.Pavan Kumar Reddy-Regional Manager and Mr.Sujit Kumar-
Chief Manager.
13. The Company when not defamed cannot espouse the cause of
its employees to file a private complaint for defamation. The person
defamed only can approach the Court and file a complaint. The
communication clearly refers to the Regional Manager and Chief
Manager doing illegal acts, as such, it is for them in their individual
capacity to lodge a complaint. Since there is nothing in the
communication which defames the Company as a whole, the
proceedings initiated by the Company cannot be allowed to
continue.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.308 of 2016 on the file
of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Metropolitan City
Criminal Courts at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.11.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
tk
