IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7776 OF 2009 Between: P. Venkanna, S/o. P. Veera Mallaiah ……Petitioner – Accused No.2 AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & 2 others .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7776 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner P. Venkanna, accused No.2, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C. No.48 of 2009 on the file of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad filed by the complainant S. Srinivasa Chary, respondent No.2 herein, for the offences under Sections 500 and 506 IPC read with 34 IPC. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On account of a reply notice given by an Advocate, the petitioner herein, the other Advocate - complainant herein got annoyed and filed the impugned complaint, as there is allegation of blackmailing against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice was issued on the instructions of the petitioner’s client, as such the petitioner is not liable. 5. But, when defamatory allegations are drafted, prima facie the case is maintainable. Ultimately, on the basis of evidence, it may be a case where the petitioner is liable for the offence under Section 500 IPC. So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, the same is not maintainable, as such, the same can be quashed. 6. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part, at the admission stage itself, quashing the impugned proceedings against the petitioner under Section 506 IPC alone. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 9, 2009. PV