THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.C.C.A.No.175 of 1995 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.2260 of 1988 dated 24.07.1995. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff joined as L.D.Clerk in the department of Technical Education, Government of A.P., on 18.04.1961 and was promoted to the post of U.D.Clerk on 10.04.1968. The defendant University was formed in the year 1972 and the plaintiff was absorbed in the service of the University with effect from 02.10.1972, and later he was promoted as Superintendent in the year 1975. In the year 1978 he was on leave for some time. Ultimately, he was removed from service on account of unauthorized absence. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed a writ petition and the same was dismissed. He also filed a writ appeal, which was also dismissed. However, this was not relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal. 4. In the year 1978 when the plaintiff was in service, the defendant lodged a complaint against him and two others S. Rama Rao, the then financial advisor of J.N.T.U. and one M.M.Baig, who was connected with accounts, alleging that they misappropriated the funds of the defendant-University. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No.165 of 1978 was registered by the police, Humayunnagar Police Station, under Sections 409, 465, 467, 417 and 120(B) of IPC. But, no charge sheet was filed against the appellant. He obtained anticipatory bail. 5. The grievance of the plaintiff-appellant is that though a complaint was given about misappropriation of funds, no charge sheet was filed against him. As such, the complaint is false. On account of the complaint, he suffered defamation, therefore, he is entitled for damages. 6. Defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as prayed for? 2. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. On the basis of material on record, the court below dismissed the suit. 9. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 10. The contention raised by the plaintiff-appellant that he suffered defamation was not accepted by the court below. First of all, there is no positive material to show that the plaintiff has suffered any defamation, as he did not examine any witness apart from himself to show that on account of the material with regard to the complaint given against him, there was any bad impression created. The question is whether on account of giving a complaint about misappropriation, any defamation is constituted. 11. There appears to be no dispute about misappropriation of huge funds of University and a complaint being given by the university against the persons that were incharge of that section dealing with finances. In case the police did not conclude the investigation and file charge sheet against the appellant, it cannot be said that the complaint was false. In case, the complaint was prosecuted and he was acquitted holding that he is not responsible for any misappropriation, the question would have been different. In a case of this nature, there was absolute necessity of impleading the police concerned also. When the complainant gives a complaint about an offence and when the police concerned would not take action, the complaint cannot be ipso facto treated as false. 12. Further more, the complainant cannot be said to be having any malafide intention against the plaintiff to constitute an offence of defamation. I n M. SAKUNTHALA DEVI v. G. SURYANARAYANA NAIDU[1] this Court held that giving a report to police by complainant without further participation, does not render the complainant liable to pay damages. Learned counsel for the appellant did not brought to my notice any authority to say that in the present circumstances, i.e. of giving a mere complaint of an offence that too of a nature of present case, where huge funds of University were misappropriated would constitute an offence of malicious prosecution. 13. In the above circumstances, I see no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th November 2010, Rns [1] 1988(2) Law Summary (SRC) 35