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.7626 OF 2008 Between: Shah Gulam Gouse Moinuddin …Petitioner 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.7626 OF 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.166 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Nellore District. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur against the petitioner alleging offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.16 of 2008. According to the complainant, the petitioner, who was working as Sajjada Nasheen of A.S.Pet Darga, filed E.A.No.136 of 2000 in O.S.No.50 of 1913 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Nellore requesting the Court to record nomination dated 04.11.1999 in favour of his eldest son through his third wife to succeed to the office of Sajjada Nasheen. It is stated that the management of Darga is governed by a scheme framed in O.S.No.50 of 1913, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Nellore, and as per Clause 3 of the said scheme, the appointment to the said office is by nomination by the incumbent. It is alleged that during the course of enquiry in E.A.No.136 of 2000, the petitioner, through his counsel, cross-examined R.W.1 Shagulam Nakshaband Abdullah Saheb @ Rasheed , the complainant herein to the effect that he is suffering from leprosy to the left leg for the last 20 years. The suggestion is denied by the complainant herein, but he however stated that there are white patches on his right hand fingers. The complainant alleges that the suggestion put to him to the effect that he was suffering from leprosy amounts to defamation. The petitioner/accused, on the other hand, contends that any person suffering from leprosy is disqualified to hold the office of Sajjada Nasheen and so while cross-examining the complainant pertaining to his eligibility to hold the office, the said suggestion had to be made as it was necessary and relevant to ascertain whether or not he was suffering from leprosy and whether or not he was disqualified to hold the office on that score. 4. It is not disputed that a person suffering from leprosy is not eligible to hold the said office. The complainant was contesting the application E.A.No.136 of 2000 filed by the petitioner by filing objections inter alia on the ground that the accused was not eligible to hold the office of Sajjada Nasheen, as he was suffering from leprosy. In the course of cross-examination of the complainant herein, it was relevant and necessary to ascertain whether or not he was suffering from any such disease that would disentitle him to hold the office. It cannot, therefore, be said that the suggestion put to the complainant by the accused was defamatory in its nature or content. Even otherwise, leprosy is a disease like any other ailment and is curable and simply because a person gets afflicted with the said disease, it does not entail any defamatory consequences. The suggestion made to any person as to whether he was suffering from leprosy or not cannot, therefore, be considered to be defamatory in its nature or content, as the said disease is only a physical condition of the body and is like any other disease and nothing to feel shame and the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein alleging the offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC is, therefore, totally misconceived. The question of the complainant suffering any loss of reputation on account of the suggestion made to him in the cross-examination does not, therefore, arise. The ingredients of the offences alleged are not at all attracted even prima facie. Continuance of further proceedings in C.C.No.166 of 2008, in the above circumstances, would only amount to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case where further proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.166 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Atmakur, Nellore District are liable to quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and they are accordingly quashed. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2011 Lrkm