Telangana High Court
Madamanchi Venkata Subrahmanya Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 12 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
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.200 of 2019 on the file of
XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Rajendranagar, for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of
the Indian Penal Code.
2. The 2nd respondent who worked as Senior Civil Judge and
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 an
intention to dissolve the marriage between No.1 of your
client and my client, he want to remarry to No.1 of your
client with his son i.e., Vinod who was divorced and he
successfully made No.1 of your client wantonly desert my
client and she has been separately living from my client
since 2014."
4. The said words were written in the notice sent by the accused
as a reply to the notice sent by accused's wife.
5. The only ground 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 Section 499 of IPC, so as to make it punishable
under Section 500 of IPC.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd.Abdulla Khan v.
Prakash K 1 held that, whether the publication amounted to
defamation or not can be decided after recording the evidence at the
time of trial, and the same cannot be a subject matter under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
(2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 615
7. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of High Court of
Delhi in Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy 2.
8. Section 499 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
"499. Defamation.--Whoever by words either spoken or
intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe
that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such
person, is said, except in the cases 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
2006(87) DRJ 603
third person, the proceedings cannot be quashed. It is for the trial
Court to decide on the facts of the case, whether the offence of
defamation is made out or not.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:12.02.2025
tk
