THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1957 OF 2009 DATED: 12-08-2010 Between G.Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner-Accused And 1.State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another …Respondents-Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1957 OF 2009 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.99 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner demanded the 2nd respondent for payment of Rs.95,000/- for which the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to produce evidence that he complied with the conditions of compromise. The 2nd respondent was not known what was happening in the appeal and asked the petitioner to produce evidence. The petitioner sent a memorandum to the president, Bar Association, Narsaraopet, on 11-11-2002, alleging that the 2nd respondent colluded with the defendant in the suit trying to swallow Rs.95,000/- without making payment and he wantonly with held the amount against the rules of Bar Council. Some of the Advocates who read the representation began to suspect the 2nd respondent and his bona fides. The petitioner also filed complaint case No.150 of 2002 before the Council of Andhra Pradesh. The assertion of the petitioner is to defame the 2nd respondent’s status in the society and to harm his reputation. The 2nd respondent issued a legal notice, for which, the petitioner gave reply. The 2nd respondent filed an application in the Court and permission was also granted and the petitioner withdrawn the amount. The 2nd respondent filed the complaint, which was taken cognizance by the Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that because the 2nd respondent did not return the amount of Rs.95,000/-, the petitioner complained to the Bar Council and when the disciplinary proceedings are in the Bar Council, he deposited certain amount, that the allegations in the complaint if taken as true and correct are not per se defamatory and hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. 4. Section 500 IPC prescribes punishment for defamation. What is defamation is defined under Section 499 IPC, which is as follows: “Whoever by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted to defame that person.” From the above provision, it is clear that if the accused with an intention to defame the reputation of another or having knowledge or reason to believe such imputation will affect the reputation of the person, it is an offence punishable under Section 499 IPC. The allegation levelled against the 2nd respondent by the petitioner is that he swallowed Rs.95,000/- that he misappropriated the amount and colluded with the defendant in the suit and trying to swallow the amount and the 2nd respondent wantonly with held the amount belonging to the accused. These allegations prima facie per se defamatory because the allegations were levelled again in the legal notice i.e., the Advocate swallowed the money and misappropriated Rs.95,000/-. It would be a different matter if the Advocate was keeping the amount with him without paying the same to the petitioner. Such is not the case here. Therefore, the allegations in the notice got issued by the accused prima facie per se defamatory. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The observations, if any, made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and uninfluenced by any of the observations, the trial Court shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. ------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU DATED:12-08-2010 Hsd