IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4737 OF 2009 Between: V.B.Rajendra Prasad and another …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.4737 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.647 of 2009, on the ﬁle of the XVII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein ﬁled a private complaint against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 before the XVII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging oﬀences under Sections 448, 499 and 500 IPC and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.635 of 2006. According to the complainant, he is owner of plot bearing No.C-17, Filmnagar Cooperative Housing Society, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from the society in the year 1982 after duly becoming member of the society and the plot measures 450 sq. yards and that in 1989, he constructed a house surrounded by a compound wall. He alleges that in 1999, one Buchi Rao, who was his neighbour, started creating nuisance with intention to force the complainant to sell the house to him and though the complainant gave several complaints to the society, no action was taken by the Society. He alleges that during the general body meeting, he raised several issues regarding aﬀairs of the society, but A-1, who is President, was always giving evasive replies and A-1 and the Secretary A- 2 were intimidating the complainant from raising questions. He alleges that in that process, the accused sent their agents on 09.06.2005 to trespass into the house of the complainant with intention to take wrong measurements and harass the complainant and in spite of protest from the complainant, the agents of the accused trespassed into the house. The complainant further alleges that he got issued a legal notice dated 11.06.2005 to the accused complaining against the trespass and the accused got issued a reply notice stating that their agents never entered the house of the complainant. According to him, the accused published agenda notes for the general body meeting to be conducted on 26.03.2006 and in the brochure, they have published legal notices exchanged between the complainant and the accused. The complainant, therefore, alleges that with a view to defame, the accused have published the brochure with baseless, irrelevant and unethical allegations. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even if the allegations contained in the complaint, on its face value, are taken to be true, the ingredients of the alleged oﬀences are not attracted even prima facie. According to the petitioners, as the society has taken a decision to expel the complainant from the membership, the complainant has ﬁled the present complaint as a counter-blast. 5. The complainant alleges that the accused, who are President and Secretary, were intimidating the complainant from raising any questions pertaining to the aﬀairs of the society in the general body meeting and even if he raised any questions on various issues, A-1, the President, and A-2, the Secretary of the Society, were giving evasive replies. The complaint does not disclose any details as to in which meeting of the general body convened on which date, the complainant raised which question pertaining to which aﬀair of the society and what reply the petitioners have given. No details of the alleged intimidation as to how and in what manner the complainant was intimidated from raising questions, are disclosed in the complaint. The said allegation, which is made by way of motive for the alleged oﬀences, remains vague and baseless. 6. According to the complainant, in the course of such intimidation the accused have sent their agents to the house of the complainant for taking wrong measurements without issuing any notice to the complainant and in spite of protest from the complainant, the agents of the accused had trespassed into the house. Thus, even according to the averments in the complaint, neither A-1 nor A-2 has committed the act of alleged trespass and the allegation is to the eﬀect that they sent their agents on 09.06.2005. The names of those agents are nowhere stated in the complaint. It is also not disclosed whether any measurements of the house were taken. The complaint also does not disclose that the complainant has given any report to the police complaining of any trespass against the persons, who are said to have entered his house for taking measurements. There is again nothing on record to show that those unnamed persons are the agents of the accused or that they were deputed by the accused for the purpose of taking measurements. The said allegation, apart from being vague, does not also attract the ingredients of the alleged oﬀence of trespass even prima facie as against A-1 and A-2. 7. Regarding the alleged oﬀence of defamation, even as per the averments in the complaint, what all stated is that the legal notices exchanged between the parties were published in the brochure of the agenda notes prepared in the general body meeting to be conducted on 26.03.2006. Admittedly, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 11.06.2005 complaining about the alleged trespass and the accused got issued a reply notice denying any such trespass. What all published in the brochure of the agenda notes is contents of the legal notices exchanged between the parties. It is inconceivable as to how the said publication of the contents of the legal notices exchanged between the parties, the complainant alleging trespass and the accused denying any such trespass, would amount to defamation. The complaint does not disclose as to whether any words or expressions defamatory in their content, are published in the said brochure adversely reflecting on the reputation of the complainant. It is nowhere disclosed in the complaint that on reading the said publication anyone has entertained any adverse opinion touching upon the reputation of the complainant or expressed the same to him so as to make the complainant feel that he was defamed in the eyes of the public. Reputation of a person lies in the esteem in which he is held by the public, but not in what he perceives about himself. According to the complainant, the publication of the notices exchanged was irrelevant and unnecessary for the general body meeting proposed on 26.03.2006, as there was no topic in the agenda relating to the alleged trespass. Even if the notices were published in the agenda notes, though not required for the meeting, still in the absence of any defamatory content in the said publication and in the absence of any public perception that they were defamatory, the ingredients of the alleged oﬀences of defamation do not get attracted by mere publication of the notices in the agenda notes. 8. In the circumstances, continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.647 of 2009, on the ﬁle of the XVII- Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, is nothing but abuse of process of law, as even going by the averments in the complaint and even if they are taken to be true, the ingredients of the alleged oﬀences are not attracted even prima facie. It is, therefore, considered eminently a ﬁt case where the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 and they are accordingly quashed.. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2011 Lrkm