THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7751 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.199 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad registered for offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 499 IPC. The petitioner is A1 and the respondents 1 and 2 are the complainants in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the calendar case. According to the complainants, A1 lodged alleged imputation/false complaint dated 17.5.2005 which are defamatory with the Income Tax Department while marking several copies of it to the Prime Minister, President of India, Union Home Ministry, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Central Vigilance Commission, concerned Police Stations, several hundreds of customers of the complainants including few of its esteemed customers namely Andhra Bank, State Bank of India, ECIL etc., and on the basis of that complaint, the State Home Department directed the concerned Inspector General of Police to investigate into the matter and submit a report and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sultan Bazar who was delegated with the power conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the Commissioner of Police, presumably stating that the allegations made in the complaint proved to be false, whereas no copy of it was furnished to them (complainants) on the ground of confidentiality and A1 also made a representation to the Income Tax Department under the provisions of Right to Information Act with regard to the consequential action taken by the department on the complaint and as no action was taken, he preferred appeal before the Central Public Information Officer, office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, the first appellate authority under the Right to Information Act which was rejected, by reason of which, he approached the Central Information Commission under R.T.I. Act. Further, in the imputation several baseless allegations were made against them and their family members in order to wreck vengeance against them and ruin their business and cause financial loss to them with ulterior motives. Further, A1 also involved in making imputation in Vaartha Telugu Daily Newspaper i.e. A2 on 26.5.2002 under the caption “Illegal Profit by Kirloskar Dealer, Heavy Loss to Banks” against them (the complainants) and hence the latter approached A2 and lodged their protest and in response to it, A2 published another news item on the next day i.e. on 27.5.2002 clarifying that the news item published on 26.5.2002 was baseless and was issued at the behest of A1 and in fact A2 also conducted an independent enquiry with the active aid and assistance of the police of Sultan Bazar and also with Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. that the information provided by A1 was false and baseless and to the said effect, A2 also published another news item on 30.5.2002. The learned counsel for the complainants has drawn the attention of the Court to the following paragraphs in the complaint containing about 16 pages in this context: 1. M/s AAR BEE Enterprises by Propreitor G.Parimala and her husband Sudhinder Kumar at D.No.4-5-896/4/3A, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad like Harshad Mehta and Natwarlal M/s AAR BEE Enterprises cheated State and Central Government and Banks and also duping Sales Tax and Income Tax by making tax evasion. 2. That Smt.G.Parimala W/o C.R.Sudhinder Kumar is convicted by the XV M.M. Court, in C.C.No.1259/01 for six months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine and even appellate Court i.e. II M.S.J. Hyderabad has confirmed the said punishment vide Criminal Appeal No.314/2003 and this proves that Prop: of M/s Aar Bee Enterprises is a confirmed, declared and proclaimed convict and income tax officials i.e. Rajender Kumar Joshi and Lakshmi Joshi are still staying at the same house with them and appears out of way supporting culprits. 3. That it is common talk that Rajender Kumar Joshi consumes costly drinks like Red Knight Whisky and he is daily entertaining on an average 5 to 6 persons by going to different Bar and Restaurant i.e. Gokul, Suprabhat at Kachiguda Road and during lunch hour goes to Narmada Bar and Restaurant with friends and also uses lift room at Terrace of I.T. office at Ayakar Bhavan to consume liquor before leaving office thereby making mockery of his position and defaming I.T. Department. His dismissal is a must to keep the good image of I.T. Department. It appears he is corrupt to the core of Natwarlal and protecting and harbouring the white collared crime of tax evasion by his brother-in-law Sudhinder Kumar and his wife G.Parimala. Probe where from Rajender Kumar Joshi is getting Rs.1,000/- for consuming liquor daily. Even if doctors check his blood the liquor contents will be disclosed even in day time. 4. C.R.Sudhinder and G.Primala be held responsible as the above persons are conspiring to kill the complainant by engaging contract killers. 5. G.Parimala’s father to marry a divorcee Smt.Prema Bai and on refusal by Gopinath Rao, Sudhinder Kumar threatened to divorce his wife G.Parimala (daughter of Gopinath Rao) and under such threats Gopinath Rao of 60 years was forced to marry divorcee and later marriage broken by providing permanent alimony. 6. Hence, it is prayed in the interest of the justice that all the above culprits be arrested and punished as per the law of the land. Early action is highly appreciated. Further, copies of publications dated 26.5.2002, 27.5.2002 and 30.5.2002 published in A2 and the notice dated 20.3.2007 issued by the Central Information Commission to the Central Public Information Officer, office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the first appellate authority under RTI Act, 2005 and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad to appear before it on 23.5.2007 in connection with the appeal filed by A1 under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 and also other correspondence are filed before the Court. The learned counsel for A1 submits that there is no “to” address in the complaint, whereas there is only “from” address of A1 and further contends that if any such material was sent to anybody by post and even communication of it to such persons against whom the alleged imputation was made would not amount to defamation and even supposing that it was so made, it was made in good faith and without any malafide intention, which does not amount to defamation as it is covered by exception (9) to Section 499 IPC relying upon decisions in K.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN v. P.RAMAN NAMBOODIRI[1], RAJENDRA KUMAR SITARAM PANDE AND OTHERS v. UTTAM AND ANOTHER[2], SMT.Dr.NAGARATHNAM v. M.KALIRAJAN[3] and BASHIR ULLA KHAN v. MOHD. RAFI AND ANOTHER[4]. The learned counsel for the complainants has drawn the attention of the Court to certain admissions made by A1 in the grounds of petition with regards to the imputations made and claimed that in view of those submissions, A1 got no right to claim that it was not addressed to anybody and it was also not sent to anybody claiming that there is good material of defamation and in fact, in the grounds of petition, it is clearly asserted by A1 that the complaint was made in good faith to the lawful authority having jurisdiction to enquire into the matter and therefore, having made such admission, he cannot claim or he is estopped from claiming now that it was not addressed to anybody and as such non-mentioning of “to” address therein is not material by relying upon the decision in HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[5] The point for consideration is whether the alleged imputation/the complaint was made in good faith or not and whether there is material about the defamation to prosecute the accused. In K.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN v. P.RAMAN NAMBOODIRI (1 supra), it was held that publication of any defamatory material was defamation and communication of an official entry in a confidential report of a superior officer through the official channel cannot be described as publication to warrant initiation of a prosecution for defamation. In Smt.Dr.NAGARATHINAM v. M.KALIRAJAN (3 supra), it was observed that unless necessary publication was made and the alleged defamatory statement was sent to the complainant by registered post it would not amount to defamation. Further, in BASHIR ULLA KHAN v. MOHD. RAFI (4 supra) it was held that whenever any investigation was made on information supplied in good faith or without any malafide intention then the person who made report could not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 500 IPC. Similar observations were made under similar circumstances in the other decisions cited. Emphatically, the publication in A2 newspaper dated 26.5.2002 and the corresponding reminders issued on 27.5.2002 and 30.5.2002 are barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. with reference to the punishment prescribed under the section, because the complaint was filed in the year 2007, i.e. after five years thereafter. Therefore, those aspects cannot be considered with regards to the offence in question, whereas they can be considered for necessary clarification about the question of defamation. Therefore, the so-called imputations made on 17.5.2005 and 28.5.2007 are to be taken into consideration here. In fact, no material is filed before the Court with regards to making copies of the material to the public and no material is also filed before the Court with regards to marking copies of the material as claimed in the complaint, but what is significant is that there is no specific denial of marking of the alleged defamatory statements to various authorities and also several hundreds of the customers of the complainant including their esteemed customers State Bank of India, ECIL etc., which therefore is to be taken as publication of it to the public. Further definitely the material is in the nature of defaming the reputation of the complainants personally and also in their business circles prima facie. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for A1 are not tenable. I am of the view that unless necessary trial of the case is conducted, it is not possible to establish the complicity or innocence of A1 in the matter. For the foregoing reasons, I see no grounds to quash the proceedings and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 30-12-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7751 of 2008 .12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.7751 of 2008 Date: December, 2011 Between: Rajesh Bhatia .. Petitioner/A1 And C.R.Sudhinder Kumar and others. .. Respondents [1] 1985 Crl.L.J. 1035 [2] AIR 1999 SC 1028 [3] 2001 Crl.L.J. 3007 [4] 2006 Crl.L.J. 3549 [5] AIR 1966 SC 97