THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.6127 OF 2010 ORDER: This application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.252 of 2010 on the file of Chikkadpally P.S, Hyderabad. A private complaint has been filed for an offence punishable under Sections 504, 500, 506 and 505 IPC which was referred to the police and it was registered. The substance of the complaint is that the complainant worked in the A-1 Company in which Accused Nos.2 to 10 are directors. The complainant was also Vice President. The complainant has been performing the duties satisfactorily and with appreciation. While matter stood thus, the Company sent a draft employee agreement to the complainant in the month of June- 2009 and spread a whispering campaign among the staff that the complainant is Christian and their people should not be believed. The complainant did not agree to sign the agreement but offer to resign. The Company took the act of the complainant as an act of insubordination and served a termination notice on 10-08-2009 on the ground of “insubordination”. Subsequently, the Company has published in Telugu, English and Kannada dailies from 10-02-2010 to 12-02-2010 showing the complainant as “Benedict Judas Williams” and that he was terminated from service for his act of fraud and financial malfeasance. The substance of the complaint is that word “Judas” used in the name of the complainant is intentional and “Judas” as per the Christian faith is understood as a traitor and such will not be associated in the community. He also claimed that after seeing this news, several of his friends, well wishers questioned for which he felt insulted and there was scope for communal disharmony. The attribution of the name as “Judas” and also publication that he was removed from services on acts of fraud and financial malfeasance are intended actions of malice and to put the complainant to disrepute. The present application is filed by the Accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings which is the contention of the petitioners that the word “Judas” does not relate to traitor or a person with criminal conduct and therefore there is no act of malice or disrepute attributable to the said publication. It was also further pleaded however subsequently in the complaint and the other complaints, the said term has been deleted and therefore no offence on this ground is attracted. It was also further pleaded that the offences under Sections 504 and 506 or 505 IPC are not attracted in this case and the question of any communal disturbances or disharmony does not arise. Further more, the complaint as such against the Company without any proof of the persons responsible for management is also not maintainable. It is also further pleaded that in fact the complainant was prosecuted for acts of fraud and was convicted and he was a proclaimed offender and therefore the question of malicious prosecution or any malice referable to the accused does not arise. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision reported in Iridium India Telecom Limited Vs. Motorola Incorporated and others ([1]) in which the liability of the corporate persons for criminal acts has been considered and the essence of it is that there should be material pleading about the acts of the persons who are to be held liable. Reliance is also placed on the other decision reported in Standard Chartered Bank and others Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and others ([2]) and also decision reported in Lakshmi Ganesh Films, Hyderabad and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others([3]) which deal with the cases of the liability of the corporate bodies in prosecution and latter decision dealing with the Christian faith and the prohibition of exhibition of a movie. Reliance is also placed on a decision reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others([4]) which is popularly known as Bhajan Lal case which envisages under what circumstances a criminal prosecution has to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant strongly contends that the case is only at the stage of investigation and it is not at this stage for the court to consider as to what offences have been committed and as to what offences are punishable and the power of the court to quash a proceedings shall be exercised sparingly. According to him, the main grievance of the complainant is that his services were terminated on the ground of insubordination whereas in the paper publication which was admittedly made by Accused No.1 apart from adding the word “Judas” in the name of the complainant, the paper publication shows that the complainant was removed for acts of fraud and financial malfeasance. The above two allegations are false and it is only to undermine the prestige of the complainant and the truth or other wise and the bonafides of the accused can only be decided at the trial. Sofar as the corporate liability is concerned, according to him, the company is represented by Accused No.2 and the publication was given in the name of Accused No.3, who are petitioners herein and their association in regard to management of the Company is not in dispute and the fact of giving paper publication is also not in dispute. According to the counsel for the complainant, the contentions raised by the petitioners have to be only inquired by the police by due investigation and prima facie there is material to show that the statements given in the paper publication is incorrect. Evidently, the power of the court to entertain the quash proceedings is exceptional. It is the duty of the court to see that there shall not be abuse of process of law but at the same time no persons should be denied the recourse of law when a wrong has been said to have been committed. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I agree with the contentions raised by the counsel for the complainant and the allegations in the complaint petition prima facie shows that there are grounds to proceed with the investigation and it is not a case for quashing of the proceedings. It is ultimately for the Investigating Officer to decide after taking the statements and inquiring with the accused about their intention and conduct and to come to a conclusion whether any offence is committed or not but at this stage it is not a case for quashing of the proceedings. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 08-08-2011 TSNR [1] (2011) 1 SCC 74 [2] (2005) 4 SCC 530 [3] 2006(4) ALD 374 [4] 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335