THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.3103 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: 1. The Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C. No.309 of 2008 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District registered for offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 506 IPC read with 109 IPC. 2. The petitioners are A1 and A2 and the first respondent is the complainant in the calendar case. For convenience sake, I refer them as arrayed in the calendar case. 3. The complainant filed private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 506 IPC read with 109 IPC against A1 and A2. It is alleged in the complaint as follows: “1). The Complainant has been a Software engineer for fourteen years, having qualified as an M.S.E.E from the University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. and he has worked in diverse and noteworthy software industries in India and Overseas in the U.S, and he also worked in Hyderabad at Microsoft R&D Pvt Ltd., Microsoft campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. The complainant hails from a reputed family, his father having served with great distinction as a senior central government Official was awarded padmashri for his notable service, thereby, the complainant holds good status and reputation in society and in industrial organizations known to him personally or by way of work. 2). The complainant has not been involved in any activity lowering or diminishing his credibility or reputation in general, public or private or of any kind whatsoever. 3). The complainant happened to work in Microsoft India (R & D) Pvt. Limited (“Microsoft”), situated at Microsoft Campus, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, from 6-06-2006 to 4- 5-2007 as Senior Software Engineer, and he left the said company by tendering a resignation letter on his own reasons and the same was considered and accepted by Microsoft without adverse or other observation, therefore, as such, his resignation was accepted fairly by Microsoft. 4). Recently “Wipro Technologies’, a division of Wipro Limited, Situated at Survey no.64, Madhapur, Hyderabad-33 having contacted, interviewed numerous times, and verifying the references provided by the complainant, gave a comprehensive offer of appointment dated 28-03-2008 signed by Ms. Padmini Mani Giri, Senior Manager in wipro technologies. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Padmini Mani Giri, indirectly, unethically, unconventionally in a roundabout fashion and without the knowledge or consent of the complainant, obtained e- mail information from the accused no.1, who being antagonistic and hostile to the complainant wanted to ruin the complainant’s career and reputation. In fact, the accused No.1 sent numerous e-mail communications through the computer network facility of Microsoft during the period between 28-3-2008 and 4-04-2008, using derogatory, libelous, defamatory and malicious language against the complainant, lowering and diminishing the complainant’s knowledge, experience, behavior, and conduct to Wipro Technologies in order to ensure that the Wipro Technologies would rescind its job offer to the complainant. 5). Further, upon obtaining the adverse and defamatory email communications dispatched by the accused no.1, smt. Padmini Mani Giri on behalf of Wipro Technologies, sent a withdrawal letter dated 4-4-2008 to the complainant, withdrawing the employment offer letter issued dated 28-03-2008. The reasons for the withdrawal of the offer letter is stated by her as ‘The reference checks have not been satisfactory’ . 6). The accused no.2 who is the head of HR, Microsoft India (R & D), knew very well that such malignant communication was being sent. In doing so, both the accused no.1 and 2 had prior collaboration and communication with each other, and they both in fact prepared the defamatory contents of the e-mails, and sent them to wipro technologies to lower, diminish and impugn the complainant’s reputation and ability in order to ruin his career. 7). Further, if the records, hard disks and storage media and backups of the Microsoft as well as Wipro technologies email storage servers in addition to all the computers and all and diverse e-mail and other data for the period from 28.3.2008 to 5.4.2008 of the accused addressed to the Wipro Technologies or wipro.com using the e-mail alias neerajg@microsoft.com are seized certainly the truth would come to light. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the accused may even try to tamper, destroy or delete the evidentiary information to escape the legal consequences, and the offence of evidentiary destruction. 8). Further all the acts of the accused no.1 and 2 attracts punishment under section 499, 500 r/2 109 I.P.C., and also under section 506 I.P.C., as they deliberately spell the defamatory statements against the complainant in order to lower and impugn the character and ability of the complainant by circulating such imputations which are libellous and slanderous and as such the accused are liable for the punishment under the law. 4. The learned senior counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy appearing for A1 and A2 contends that absolutely there is no material on record to show that any defamatory material was sent by A1 and A2 to M/s. Wipro Technologies against the complainant punishable for the alleged offence. 5. In fact, earlier Criminal Petition M.P. No.2687 of 2008 was filed seeking to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of A1 and A2 in the Calendar Case before the trial Court and in the said petition, this Court passed the following order on 8.9.2008: “Heard both sides. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 – de facto complainant that defamatory material though not available right now, it is possible to retrieve the same from the computers concerned and place the same before the Court and if that process can be done there would be material to decide as to whether there is prima facie material against the petitioners or not. In the circumstances, trial of the C.C. shall be stayed for the present. But, in the meanwhile respondent No.1 is at liberty to take steps for retrieving the defamatory material from the source wherever it is available and that exercise shall go on and the material available shall be filed before the trial Court with a copy before this Court. After completion of the above process, on the basis of outcome of the same, further steps can be considered. Post after eight weeks, before which it is hoped that the above process would be completed, as the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 reports that within one month the above process can be completed.” 6. Further, an order was passed by this Court on 8.12.2008 in which, it is similarly observed that there is absolutely no defamatory material on record as admitted by both the parties and even though by the earlier order dated 8.9.2008, the defacto-complainant was directed to place necessary material to retrieve relevant defamatory material from the computers and file the same into the Court, he failed to do so and unless there is sufficient material to the effect that the accused involved in defaming the defacto-complainant, the latter should not be prosecuted. However, it is also directed that before the final disposal of the main petition to quash the proceedings, the defacto-complainant could still file relevant defamatory material, if any, before the trial Court with a further direction to post the matter for final hearing in usual course. 7. Now the point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings. 8. It is emphatical that this Court earlier found that the complainant failed to place any material to the effect that A1 and A2 involved in defaming him in any way and twice the complainant was given time to retrieve necessary material from the computers and file the same before the Court, but he failed to do so. In fact there is no defamatory material available for the purpose of prosecuting A1 and A2 in the case. 9. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that A1 and A2 are in the possession of relevant defamatory material and therefore, a direction may be given to them to produce them before the Court. It is also conceded by him when questioned by this Court that the complainant got no basis to say what defamatory words A1 and A2 used against him and only basing upon the conduct of A1 and A2 with regards to removing the defacto-complainant from the job, such conclusion was arrived at. 10. In order to take cognizance of the criminal case with regards to any charge, there should be material prima facie to do so. In other words, if there is no prima facie material, no cognizance of a criminal case should be taken. Taking cognizance of a criminal case against any body without any basis is nothing but unnecessary harassment of the individual. By virtue of Section 154 Cr.P.C. the Police got right to register a case when a cognisable offence is made out against a person. On the other hand, Section 155 of the Code deals with the question of registering a non-cognizable offence and the power of police to investigate the case. Sections 156 to 174 Cr.P.C. deal with the powers of the Police to investigate the cases. It is quite surprising as to how the lower court had taken cognizance of the case even though no prima facie material was placed before it with regards to the question of defaming the defacto-complainant in the case, which is against the cardinal principles of the system of criminal administration of justice. Further, Sections 200 to 204 Chapter XV Cr.P.C. deal with the question of filing private complaints and taking cognizance of them on finding that sufficient material is placed to take cognizance of cognisable and non-cognizable offences. Sections 204 to 210 Cr.P.C. deal with the question of commencement of proceedings before the Magistrates. So unless cognizable or non-cognizable offences are made out no case can be registered by the said authorities. It appears that only basing upon surmises and conjectures in consequence of removing the defacto-complainant from the job, the complaint was filed. Further, it is significant to note that in spite of giving sufficient time, the complainant failed to place necessary material before the Court. Ultimately, the proceedings in the calendar case are to be quashed on the ground that there is no prima facie material to prosecute A1 and A2 for the alleged offences. 11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings C.C. No.309 of 2008 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy district are hereby quashed. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 9.9.2011 DA