THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.3752 of 2008 Date: 17.03.2011 Between: K.V. Subba Reddy and another … Petitioners AND 1. M.P. Bali Reddy 2. The State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.3752 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners-accused are man and his wife. A private complaint was filed against them before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda. The learned Magistrate took the case on file under Sections 500, 503 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short). Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is laid to quash C.C.No.143 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda. 2. The first respondent is the complainant. He is a practicing advocate at Allagadda. The petitioners started educational institutions to impart training in a decree college as well as in a college for education. They obtained a certificate that the institutions were Christian minority institutions. They are also Christians. Contending that the petitioners sold seats in the College of Education to non- Christian students for huge profits, the first respondent lodged a private complaint against the petitioners before the trial Court. It would also appear that the petitioners lodged a complaint against the first respondent with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. 3. When the first respondent laid a complaint against the petitioners u/s.182, 192, 503, 420, 468, 466, 471 and 499 IPC as well as u/s.5 of the Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitalization Fee) Act, 1983, the Court referred the same to police. After due investigation, police found the complaint to be false. The first respondent, consequently, laid a protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda. The learned Magistrate took the case on file u/s.500, 503 and 507 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that no offence is prima facie made out against the petitioners and that C.C.No.143 of 2005, consequently, is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the allegations of the complaint. Inter alia, the first respondent claimed that the petitioners developed animosity against him, that they used to threaten him by sending hooligans and that they also threatened him through undated letters. The complaint would read that one of such letters was submitted by the first respondent to the Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the offence u/s.507 IPC is made out when the criminal intimidation is through an anonymous communication. He submitted that the allegation was not that the petitioners wrote unsigned and unidentifiable letters. It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioners wrote undated letters. It is the contention of Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 507 IPC is not attracted letters as the alleged letters were not anonymous letters but are merely undated letters. Evidently, the offence u/s.507 IPC is not made out from the allegations of the first respondent that the petitioners wrote undated letters making allegations and implications against the first respondent. The complaint to the extent of the offence u/s.507 IPC is not prima facie made out. 6. For the offence u/s.500 IPC, the necessary ingredient is communication. The complaint must state the details of the imputation made by the accused. It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioners addressed a letter to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh against the first respondent. Addressing Bar Council against the first respondent certainly is communication within the meaning of 499 IPC. Would it be defamation per se? 7. The first respondent did not allege in the complaint as to what are the defamatory words that are used by the petitioners in their complaint to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh against the first respondent. 8. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a sweeping statement by the first respondent that the petitioners made defamatory statement against the first respondent to the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh would not be sufficient to hold that the petitioners were guilty of the offence u/s.500 IPC. 9. Prima facie, the first respondent must show what was the defamatory statement that the respondents have made. In the sworn statement of the first respondent and in the complaint lodged by the first respondent, no details as to the nature of defamation by the petitioners against the first respondent are made out. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that prima facie the offence u/s.500 IPC is not made out. 10. Curiously, the learned Magistrate took the case on file u/s.500, 503 and 507 IPC. Section 503 IPC is a definition section and is not a penal provision. The first respondent failed to establish prima facie that the petitioners are guilty of the penal provisions under 500 and 507 IPC. 11. Where prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners, the criminal case against the petitioners in C.C.No.142 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda is liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.143 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda against the petitioners are quashed. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 17.03.2011 Isn