HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.579 OF 2009 DATE.09-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 (For short, ‘A-1 to A-3’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.590 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad registered for offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 120 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 to A-3, the Respondent No.2 is Complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. Briefly the complainant’s version which is to be considered here is as follows : A-1 is the daughter-in-law of the complainant and A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1. The marriage of A-1 with one Sharat Chandra, son of the complainant, was performed on 25-08-2004 as per Hindu rites and customs. Later, A-1 joined the company of her husband at Malakpet where he was living with his parents. A-1 was not happy with the presence of the complainant and his wife at her marital house and used to express her displeasure in that regard. The husband of A-1 who works in the Lanco Global Systems Ltd., My Home Sarover Plaza, V Floor, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad used to go abroad frequently on his official purposes. While so, in the month of July, 2005, A-1 delivered a female child. Subsequently, on 15-09- 2005 she joined with her husband at the house of the complainant and thereafter her husband went to USA on his official work. The very next day i.e. after he went to USA, A-1 went to her parents house. In the month of January, 2006 he returned from USA but A-1 did not join with him. Subsequently, the parents of A-1 and her maternal aunt went there and instead of patching up the situation, abused the complainant, his wife and son in a filthy language and A-1 enraged and pounced upon the wife of the complainant and caught hold of her hair and beat her and also beat the daughter of complainant who was 8 months pregnant then. Subsequently, the husband of A-1 convinced her and in fact on his great persuasion on 04-02-2006 she joined the house of the complainant. Subsequently, on 04-04-2006, the son of the complainant left for USA and10 days thereafter, A-1 went to her parents house. Subsequently, the complainant and his wife invited A-1 and her family members for the 21st ceremony of their grand daughter, then they all went but A-1 picked up big fight with the complainant and his family members and abused them and threw the articles present there helter-skelter. Subsequently, A-1 made a false complaint against the complainant, his wife, son and two daughters for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. The Police after the completion of the investigation of the case, filed charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C. No.939 of 2007, pending on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri. The specific case of the complainant is that A-1 to A-3 with an evil intention and criminal conspiracy and to defame his reputation and also his family members reputation in the eyes of the society, more particularly in the eyes of the colleagues and friends of the complainant’s son, got issued a legal notice on 20-09-2007 made in the name of A-1 with her own hand writing to the employers of the complainant’s son at Lanco Global Systems Ltd., Hyderabad in India and also in America directing that her husband be brought from America to face the criminal prosecution in Crime No.410 of 2007 on the file of Kushaiguda police station, Hyderabad, for which acts, the office personnel of Lanco Global systems Ltd., in India and in America enquired about the whole issue and the enquiries and sympathy shown by both the office personnel of the complainant’s son hurt the feelings of the complainant and lowered the image of his family members in the society. According to him, those acts only defamed the complainant and his entire family members and hence, A-1 to A-3 are liable to be punished for the alleged offence. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 to A-3 that the allegations made against them are false and even supposing them as true and genuine, A-1 to A-3 are protected by exceptions 8 and 9 of Section 499 I.P.C and it is important that C.C. No.939 of 2007 has not been disposed and is pending and there are no grounds to prosecute A-1 to A-3 and in a petition filed by A-1 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District in O.P. No.831 of 2008, the complainant made his appearance as the GPA holder of the husband of A-1 and also filed a divorce petition as GPA holder on behalf of the husband of A-1 and the complainant is unnecessarily harassing A-1 by doing so and hence the proceedings in the Calender Case No.590 of 2008 are liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State has opposed the petition. 6. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in taking necessary measures by A-1 to bring the son of the complainant to India for his appearance before the Court for his alleged involvement in the corresponding Criminal case. By virtue of Section 499 I.P.C. addressing an imputation which is sufficient to lower the reputation of a person in the view of others particularly his friends and relatives is defamation of him. However, by virtue of the exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499 I.P.C. it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation and It is also not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good by reason of which, taking necessary steps for bringing the son of the complainant to India is not defamation. In fact, there was no imputation against the complainant or his son and even supposing that there was imputation against the complainant and his son, A-1 to A-3 comes within the ambit of the said exceptions. I do not find any grounds to prosecute A-1 to A-3 in the Criminal Case. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 590 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:09-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 344 CRIMINAL PETITION No.579 OF 2009 December, 09, 2011 DSH