IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6469 OF 2007 BETWEEN:0 M.V.R. Sastry and another …. Petitioners AND N. Venkatasubbaiah and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6469 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners, Editor and the Printer & Publisher of the Andhra Bhoomi Telugu Daily Newspaper, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.831 of 2007 registered for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC, filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them by the complainant – respondent No.1 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, for publication of a news item in the District Edition of Andhra Bhoomi Telugu Daily Newspaper dated 02-07-2007 against the administration of S.K. University (for short, ‘University’), Anantapur describing him (complainant) as a rubber stamp of Vice-Chancellor. 2. The learned Magistrate without recording the statement of the complainant, since the complainant is Registrar of University and comes within the definition of public servant, under Section 21 IPC and therefore, he need not be examined before issuing process, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.J. STEPHEN AND OTHERS v. M/S. PARLE BOTTLING CO. P. LTD. AND OTHERS[1], straightaway took cognizance of the offence and issued NBWs against the petitioners on 24-09-2007. At this stage, petitioners filed the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.831 of 2007. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that as per Section 199(3) Cr.P.C., every complaint for the offence of defamation shall set forth the facts, which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonable. In the absence of any material and even though, if the complaint against the petitioners is taken on its face value, the same do not constitute an offence as alleged, and if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, there would be manifest injustice and the same would lead to abuse of process of the Court and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. After issuance of summons in the C.C., petitioners were represented through their counsel and filed an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. to dispense with their presence, but the learned Magistrate without considering the reasons stated in the application, dismissed the same, and on the first date of hearing itself, issued NBWs against the petitioners. The execution of NBWs is pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant filed the complaint in his individual capacity as Registrar, but not on behalf of the S.K. University, as such, the learned Magistrate without recording his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which mandates the Magistrate to examine the complainant on oath and the witnesses present, if any, before taking cognizance, took cognizance of the same and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 317 Cr.P.C. by referring the judgment in BHAGWAN PREMCHANDANI v. STATE OF A.P. AND ANOTHER[2], which has no application to the facts of the case on hand. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that since notice has been issued on behalf of the University, the Registrar, who is authorized to file a complaint on behalf of the University, need not be examined as per proviso (a) to Section 200 Cr.P.C. 7. Admittedly, the present complaint is filed by N. Venkatasubbaiah, who is Registrar of S.K. University, in his individual capacity but not representing the University in the capacity of a Registrar. The complaint allegations would go to show that the complainant, aggrieved by the news item, where he has been described as a rubber stamp officer of Vice Chancellor of the University, filed the C.C. for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and invited punishment for defamatory statement as covered by Section 499 IPC. Section 200 Cr.P.C., mandates examination of the complainant on oath by the Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence, except when complaint is made in writing by a public servant, acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint. It is not the case that the complainant as a public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, made such complaint; but in his individual capacity he made the complaint. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate should have recorded the statement of the complainant before taking cognizance of the offence and ought not to have dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with their presence. 8. Hence, the process issued against the petitioners and consequential NBWs are liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. On complainant filing an application to examine himself and also any witnesses, who are likely to be examined, before issuance of process, the learned Magistrate shall examine the complainant and also the witnesses, if any, before issuing process and act accordingly. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J July 30, 2010 KTL [1] AIR 1988 Supreme Court 994 [2] 1998(1) ALD 494