HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1103 of 2009 Dated 24-12-2010 Between: K.Vivekananda Kumar. …Petitioners. And: Paruchuri Geetha and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1103 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1567 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1. Petitioner’s counsel pleaded that a false complaint is lodged against the petitioner by the 1st respondent with an intention to get share of the property of the petitioner’s mother. Respondent No.1 on the other hand pleaded that she has issued a notice to the petitioner on 29-11-2007, thereby requested him to desist from activities of defaming her and to pay 2 crores as damages for the defaming the reputation of Respondent No.1. The petitioner gave a reply on 3-12-2007 denying the allegations which lead to the filing of the complaint by the respondent No.1 before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The main allegations made in the said complaint before the said Magistrate are that the complainant who is the respondent No.1 herein and the accused i.e., the petitioner herein are the sister and brother and according the averments made in the complaint, she has received phone calls from one Mr. Mohan of Thimapuram of East Godavari District, N.V.Sudhakar of Visakhapatnam, K.Sreenivasa of Kakinada, Seva Vijaya Kumar and M.Mohan Rao of Thimmapuram asking the complainant about the pamphlets distributed by the accused. The pamphlets distributed by the accused contain several baseless allegations against the complainant that the complainant is not legally wedded wife of Ramakoteswara Rao and she is indulged in illegal activities of smuggling and in illegal trafficking and she is characterless woman freaking with several young boys and borrowed amounts from various people known to the accused and not repaid the same and in spite of obtaining decrees by the creditors against her in various courts, she has defrauded several financial institutions by obtaining loans and leading luxurious life and purchasing several luxurious cars on credit and she never discharged the loans and that the persons stated above also enquired and that the pamphlets contain that the complainant dealing in counterfeits currency notes and uses the same against those persons who question the complainant and the complainant uses unsocial elements to threaten against those persons who dare to ask for any explanation regarding loans etc., and the complainant does not know English but the complainant secured wrongful decrees by fraud and the complainant has been threatening several relatives and friends over phone in order to gain money from them. The complainant denied the said allegations alleged to have made in the said pamphlet. Therefore, from the said averments made in the complaint, the complainant has filed the present complaint only basing on the alleged pamphlet said to have been circulated by the petitioner among her relatives who have questioned her about the same. But the said pamphlet is not forthcoming and the same was not filed along with the complaint. Moreover, the persons who have enquired her about the said pamphlet were not cited as witnesses in the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has pleaded that in the reply notice dated 3-12-2007, the petitioner has made wild allegations against the respondent No.1 herein and that the petitioner has distributed the said pamphlets only to defame respondent No.1 and at this stage, it is not proper to quash the proceedings and she has got opportunity to examine those witnesses whom she has referred in the complaint before the said court. In order to prima facie establish the offences under Sections 500 I.P.C., the complainant has to establish that 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. In the present case, as already discussed above, the averments made in the complaint basing on the alleged pamphlet said to have been circulated by the petitioner herein but as the said pamphlet is not forthcoming and the person who have seen the pamphlets are not cited as witnesses in the complaint and the averments made in the legal notice dated 29-11-2007 and reply dated 3-12-2007 clearly shows that there is a dispute with regard to the property between the petitioner and the Respondent No.1. Thus as the respondent No.1 could not prima facie establish any offence under Section 500 I.P.C., I hold that it is not proper to continue the said proceedings and continuing the said proceedings before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad would only amount to harassing the petitioner. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for quashing of the said proceedings. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1567 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. ____________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD Dated 24-12-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.1103 of 2009 Dated 24-12-2010