THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5501 of 2006 Date: 18th January, 2010 Between: Smt. M.Vijaya Lakshmi …Petitioner / Accused No.1 AND The State of A.P., through P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And another. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5501 of 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the first accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.353 of 2006 (old C.C.No.653 of 2003) on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, relating to offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. Subject matter of the complaint is a news item in Deccan Chronicle dated 13.04.2002 to the effect that a housewife gave petition urging the Director General of Police (DGP) to provide protection to her husband and son who were being threatened by local politicians. It was further stated in that news item that a housewife by name Vijayalakshmi said that former Malkajgiri Municipal Chairman – Suryanarayana Reddy (who is the complainant / second respondent herein) and his son – Chandrasekhar Reddy are threatening her husband Radhakrishna and their son. The said news item by itself did not make any allegations against the second respondent. The news item is only relating to giving a petition given by one Vijayalakshmi to the police authorities for protection against the second respondent. Neither the paper nor the reporter or the news bureau made any specific allegation against the second respondent in defamatory manner. The paper only reported the incident of Vijayalakshmi urging the police authorities for protection and quoted contents of Vijayalakshmi’s application to the police authorities. The said news i te m per se does not constitute publication of any defamatory statement by the newspaper. The petitioner is Vijayalakshmi (A-1) who gave report to the DGP against Malkajgiri police. She did not publish any news item by herself in Deccan Chronicle. The newspaper collected information from office of the DGP and published factum of A-1 giving petition to the DGP. A-1 did not hold any press conference nor gave copy of report to any press reporters, as per the news item. In the absence of A-1 holding any press conference and briefing press persons about contents of the petition and in the absence of A-1 passing on copy of her petition to the DGP to any press persons, it cannot be said that A-1 made any publication of defamatory statement as against the complainant / second respondent. At this stage, it may be noted that this Court (K.C.Bhanu, J), by the order dated 28.10.2004 in Criminal Petition No.4142 of 2003, quashed proceedings against A-2 and A-3, who are Editor and Publisher of Deccan Chronicle in this case. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the criminal case cannot stand as against A-1 also. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed quashing proceedings insofar as the petitioner / A-1 is concerned in C.C.No.353 of 2006 (old C.C.No.653 of 2003) on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 18, 2010 Bvv