HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8161 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioners, who are A-1 to A-7 in C.C.No.70 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Kodur, Kadapa District, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings of the said C.C. 2. The de facto complainants 1 to 5, who are respondents 1 to 5 herein, have filed a private complainant before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Kodur, basing on which the said C.C.No.70 of 2008 was registered for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). 3. The brief facts are that the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 are the children of Vakacherla Narasimhulusetty and his wife Rajamma. Subsequently, Narasimhulusetty developed illicit intimacy with the 1st respondent Kamalamma herein and he got children, the respondents 2 to 5, through Kamalamma, and Narasimhulusetty died on 01.12.2007. After the death of Narasimhulusetty, the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 got issued a legal notice to the respondents 1 to 5 herein and also got published a news item in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper on 13.01.2008 to the effect that the 1st respondent Kamalamma styling herself as the wife of late Vakacherla Narasimhulusetty got registered a gift deed dated 29.12.2007 in the names of her sons V.Balaji, V.Narasimha Prasad, V.Subba Rao and V.Jay Andhra Kumar and that Kamalamma is not the legally wedded wife of late Vakacherla Narasimhulusetty and she was only his concubine. Therefore, the ancestral properties of the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 are their exclusive properties and neither the 1st respondent Kamalamma nor her children, respondents 2 to 5, have any legal right or interest therein. Kamalamma has also executed registered document on 29.12.1973 stating that she was only the concubine of late Vakacherla Narasimhulusetty and as such she had no legal right or interest in his properties. In view of the above facts, the 1st respondent Kamalamma and her children, respondents 2 to 5, have no right to dispose of the properties of late Vakacherla Narasimhulusetty. Thereby, the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 warned the general public not to purchase any properties from the respondents 1 to 5 and be cheated. In view of the said public notice as well as the legal notice dated 13.02.2008 addressed to the respondents 1 to 5 herein, the respondents 1 to 5 have filed a private complaint in the above mentioned C.C.No.70 of 2008 contending that the publications amounted to defamatory statements damaging their reputation in the eyes of general public. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are also stated to have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.9 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, Kadapa District and as a counter blast, the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 are also said to have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.138 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, Kadapa District. The civil disputes are pending in Courts. 4. The parties are inter-related, somehow. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 submits that in causing publication of news item in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper as well as in getting legal notice issued to the respondents 1 to 5, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the respondents 1 to 5, much less under Section 500 of IPC and the petitioners/A-1 to A-7, being the children of late Vakacherla Narasimhulusetty born through his legally wedded wife, are entitled to do so, in order to protect their interest in their ancestral property. He further submits that the said news item and the legal notice do not amount to defamation and they do not fall into the ingredients of the definition thereof under Section 499 of IPC and the petitioners/A-1 to A- 7 in getting the publication of news item and also in issuing the legal notice had no intention to defame the respondents 1 to 5. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 submits that the language employed in news item in Eenadu Telugu daily newspaper as well as in the legal notice describing the 1st respondent as concubine of late Vakacherla Narasimhulusetty itself amounts to defamation, per se, whereby, the respondents 2 to 5 are rendered to be illegitimate children of Vakacherla Narasimhulusetty. He further submits that by imputing illegitimacy to the respondents 2 to 5, the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 have lowered the prestige of respondents 1 to 5 in the eyes of the general public. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the case is ripe for trial. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also after hearing all concerned and since the C.C.No.70 of 2008 is stated to be ripe for trial, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to quash to the proceedings in C.C.No.70 of 2008 exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA,J 10.11.2011 MR HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8161 OF 2008 10.11.2011 MR