IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH (7TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.10163 of 2010 Between: Chainsukh Kabra & another … Petitioners And: Mahaveer Prasad Gandhi & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.10163 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.162 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging the offences under Sections 500, 501 and 506 IPC and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in CC No.162 of 2010. According to the complainant, he is the Managing Partner of M/s Associated Constructions Company and is also General Power of Attorney for the said Company and that in the said capacity, he sold certain properties belonging to the firm to one Arvind Srimal and his wife Smt. Sumitra Srimal under registered sale deed dated 29.12.2005 for Rs.81 lakh and the sale proceeds were agreed to be shared by the partners proportionately and that while the said meeting was going in the house of the complainant, one of the partners by name Ganesh started abusing the complainant in filthy language and later the said Ganesh and the accused filed a suit against him in a Court at Secunderabad and also created a document to show that the General Power of Attorney given to him has been cancelled. He further alleges that the police of Ramgopalpet called the complainant to the Police station in January 2007 and produced him before the Court at Secunderabad and he was remanded to judicial custody and was released after six days on bail. He further alleges that the accused gave advertisement on 12th and 14th of January 2007 in local newspapers to defame the complainant, and because of the acts of the accused, he suffered loss of prestige. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the alleged complaint by Ganesh against the complainant herein was in the year 2006 and the present complaint having been filed more than three years thereafter, is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 5. It is to be noted that according to the complainant, he was remanded to judicial custody on false accusations made against him by the said Ganesh and the petitioners herein, was on 11.01.2007 and subsequently, the accused made an advertisement on 12th and 14th of January 2007 and the present complaint is filed on 08.01.2010, which is within a period of three years from the date of remand of the complainant to the judicial custody and the date of the alleged publication of defamatory material against the complainant. The truth or otherwise of the allegations contained in the complaint and whether the alleged acts on the part of the petitioners would amount to causing defamation of the complainant are the matters to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. In view of the fact that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-accused, prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the offences alleged, it is considered not a fit case to quash further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.162 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 07.12.2010 bss