HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4945 OF 2008 DATE: 14-10-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 (For short, ‘A-1 and A-2’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.771 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad registered for offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 and A-2, the Respondent No. 2 is the Complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The prosecution version in brief is as follows : A-1 is the proprietor of Aarbee Enterprises, Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad and A-2 is her husband who looks after the day to day affairs of the firm proclaiming himself to be the General Power of Attorney of A-1. The Complainant worked or got association with the firm from 1995 to 2001. In fact, the Complainant laid strong foundation for the development of its business in the market. However, ultimately he wanted to detach from the firm. Thereby, initially at the intervention of well-wishers an amicable settlement was arrived in between them. The terms of the said settlement were reduced into writing on 18-03- 2001 by A-2, whereby they undertook to get released relevant fixed deposit certificates of the Complainant and his family members and A- 1 issued two post dated cheques drawn on Vijaya Bank for encashment in the name of the Complainant. Subsequently i.e. 10 days thereafter, the Complainant presented one cheque bearing No.231357, 28-03-2001 before concerned forum and it was got cleared in due course. While so, on 30-09-2001 he presented the second cheque, post dated one bearing No.231358, dated 30-09-2001 for encashment but the same was returned unpaid. As a result of that, the Complainant’s counsel issued a statutory notice dated 04-10-2001 for which a reply dated 18-01-2001, in fact ante dated, was received by the Complainant with all defamatory allegations accusing him that taking advantage of the trust and faith reposed in him he indulged in malpractice, theft, coercion, conspiracy, misappropriation of funds, manipulation of documents and criminal breach of trust. In view of the failure of A-1 to discharge the legally enforceable debt, the Complainant got filed C.C. No.1259 of 2001 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which A-1 got compounded before this Court in Crl.R.C. No.1869 of 2004 and indulged in criminal breach of trust. Further, in O.S. No.35 of 2002, on the file of VIII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, A-1 filed additional amended written statement making further scandalous and defamatory allegations against the Complainant and his family members. Further, in O.S. No.295 of 2003 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad A-2 also filed chief-affidavit with all false, scandalous and defamatory allegations bringing not only the complainant but also his family into disrepute. Hence, A-1 and A-2 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 that whereas the reply notice was given in the year 2001, the Complaint was filed in the year 2008 before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad and therefore the case is barred by limitation by virtue of Section 468 Cr.P.C. while affirming that the Complaint was filed only as a counterblast to C.C. No.199 of 2008 pending on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed by A-1 and A-2 against the Complainant for getting published a false news item in Vaarhta Telugu Daily Newspaper. Further, it is also contended on behalf of A-1 and A-2 that in fact the contents of reply notice dated 18-01-2001 comes within the ambit of exception 9 to Section 499 I.P.C. and O.S. No.295 of 2003 on the file of III A.C.J. City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed against the Complainant for using defamataory language has been pending and he is at liberty to prove the truthfulness of the allegations in the suit and hence there is no basis to take cognizance of the matter in any case. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings against A-1 and A-2 in the Calender Case? 6 I have gone through the record. The offence covered by Section 500 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for three years maximum. By virtue of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the complaint should have been filed within three years of arising necessary cause of action. Therefore, filing of the complaint in the year 2008 is clearly barred by the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 7. Further, the question of filing of the criminal case for defamation is quite independent of the question of filing the civil suit for defamation. When a defamatory statement is made by one person against another without approaching a civil Court, he can approach a Criminal Court for the purpose of taking necessary action. In other words, taking recourse for civil liability is not a bar to take recourse for criminal liability. In fact, unless necessary trials are conducted, the truth of the allegations cannot be ascertained now. However, when admittedly the Complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468 Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings against A-1 and A-2 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings in Calender Case No.771 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 14-10-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 244 CRIMINAL PETITION No.4945 OF 2008 (Allowed) October, 14, 2011 DSH