Telangana High Court
Dr. Praveen Kumar vs State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 25 February, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.09 OF 2021
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the
petitioner/complainant seeking to set aside the order dated
21.11.2020 in S.R No.1665 of 2020 on the file of the learned II
Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX 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.1-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 30.05.2010 at Laxmi
Gardens; that respondent No.3 is the father-in-law of petitioner
and respondent No.4 is the uncle of respondent No.2, who
brought the alliance; that after marriage, differences arose
between petitioner and respondent No.2 and respondent No.2
filed criminal 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.598 of 2015 vide
judgment dated 22.05.2018 had ended up in acquittal. Therefore,
the petitioner 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 trial for the offence under Section 500
r/w 34 of I.P.C. But the trial Court, vide impugned order,
dismissed the complaint filed by petitioner under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable
Section 500 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
Krishnamoorthy 1 and Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik
GMBH Vs. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya and another 2 he seeks to
allow this Revision.
(2009) 1 SCC 101
(2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 512
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 alleged statement in
evidence was made. In C.C.No.598 of 2015, the case under
Section 498-A of I.P.C., the date of deposition of respondent No.2
is on 28.09.2016 and the petition under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is
to be filed on or before 27.09.2019. But the said application is
filed on 24.03.2021 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
Revision.
6. The trial Court, vide impugned order, observed that the
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 must 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 words will be termed as defamation. In the case
on hand, though there are words spoken by the evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 against the petitioner but those words are with regard
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 an intention to cause imputation or ill-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
complaint or criminal case filed before the Courts. As per 8th
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 any 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 and 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 would not amount to defamation.
Hence, there is no perversity 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, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 25.02.2025
ESP
