HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.7607 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner-A.5 in CC No.1488 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner-A.5 and 4 others alleging offences under section 500 read with 34 IPC and the same was taken cognizance in CC No.1488 of 2006. According to the complainant, he is respectable citizen of Hyderabad and that A.1 and A.2-Publisher and Editor of Vaartha daily news paper, published a news item in Hindi Vaartha edition dated 07.06.2006 and 09.06.2006, with defamatory content against the complainant. A.3 is the Editor and A.4 is stated to be the person, for whose benefit and advantage, the defamatory news was published. The petitioner-A.5 is working as Section Officer of Circle-II, MCH, Sardar Mahal, Hyderabad. According to the complainant, the news item was published to the effect that the complainant has been adopting various methods for blackmailing the people and that he has been extracting money from the builders of new houses in the locality of Charkaman and that the police have to put a check on the alleged activities of the complainant. It is further alleged that, in the said news item, it is stated that the complainant threatened to kill the MCH authorities and that the complainant has threatened on phone to kill one Mahesh-petitioner-A.5, who is official of MCH. According to the complainant, apart from the news item, being totally false, the petitioner-A.5 is not the concerned officer dealing with the files pertaining to the area of Charkaman, including the building Bhagyalaxmi complex, whose demolition was the subject matter of the news item and it was one Srinivas, who was the concerned Section Officer. The complainant alleges that a false and defamatory statement is made in the news item as if he is extracting money by resorting to blackmail against the builders and he was also threatening to physically assault the MCH authorities and even went to the extent of making a threat on phone to kill the petitioner-A.5. 4. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner- A.5 made any such complaint that the complainant herein made threatening phone calls to him. It is also no where stated that the petitioner-A.5 gave out any such information to any one or that he was responsible for the news item to be published. The subject news item does not disclose that the petitioner-A.5 revealed any such information against the complainant or that he was responsible for the publication of the news item. As per English translated version of the subject news item, some local business men and owners of the buildings made complaint against the complainant herein to the Police Commissioner and to the Municipal Commissioner alleging that the complainant was harassing the residents of Charkaman area and blackmailing them. It is further alleged in the news item that the affected residents reported to the police that the complainant was making false complaints with the Municipality where ever a new construction is taken up in the area and also filing cases in the courts threatening the owners of the buildings and used to collect huge amounts from them and requesting the police to have a tab on the activities of the complainant. In the said news item, what is alleged is that the officials of the Municipality stated that they have been receiving threatenings from the complainant and that the complainant has threatened the petitioner-A.5 that he would kill him as well as the departmental officials. It is further stated that the Town Planning Officer, R.N. Chary has informed that the complainant is unnecessarily creating problems regarding stoppage of demolition work of Bhagyalaxmi complex. 5. When some un-named officials of the City Municipality have stated to an un-named source that the complainant threatened the petitioner-A.5 with dire consequences, it is not known as to how the petitioner-A.5 can be held responsible for the emerge of the said news item or its publication. There is nothing on record to show even prima-facie that the petitioner-A.5 is in any way associated with the complaints given to the police by the local residents against the complainant or to the Municipal authorities. When the un-named sources have taken the name of the petitioner-A.5 as one of the targets of the complainant and in the absence of anything to show that the petitioner-A.5 has got anything to do with the same, further proceedings against the peititoner-A.5 is nothing but abuse of process of law. Even according to the complainant, the petitioner-A.5 was not the concerned official of the area. 6. Under those circumstances, it is considered a fit case where inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash further proceedings against the petitioner-A.5 in CC No.1488 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and they are accordingly quashed, as the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracting even prima- facie insofar as the petitioner-A.5 is concerned. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 22.12.2011 bss