@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. This Criminal Petition has been taken out u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by sole accused-Vantipalli Veera Venkata Satya Harischandra Prasad in C.C. No. 611 of 2004 on the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, for quashing the proceeding therein.
2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are: 1st respondent Surapuraju Ramesh worked in Godavari Grameena Bank from 1988 to May, 2002. His wife G. Vasantha Kumari was employed in Godavari Greemana Bank, Rajahmundry, as clerk-cum-cashier. Whereas, the petitioner was a Manager, Godavari Grameena Bank, Rajahmundry. Smt. G. Vasantha Kumari presented a complaint before the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station (Law & Order), Rajahmundry, on 09.01.2004, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner herein and one K. Ramana Murthy, Chairman of the Godavari Grameena Bank, Rajahmundry, insulted her and tried to outrage her modesty on 04.01.2004. Basing on the said report, the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station (Law and Order), Rajahmundry, registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 2004 on 09.01.2004. After completing the investigation, he filed a final report referring the case as false. Pending investigation of the said crime, the petitioner herein, who figured as A-2 in the said crime, moved an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, on 13.01.2004. He stated in the bail application that the case has been foisted against him by Smt. G. Vasantha Kumari and her husband S. Ramesh, who committed dereliction of duties and various other irregularities, for which, the bank officials conducted enquiries. For better appreciation, I may refer para.4 of the bail application moved by the petitioner u/s 438 Cr.P.C, which reads as hereunder:
It is submitted that it is a false case given by the complainant aimed to come out of the various allegations and enquiries being conducted by the Bank Officials for the misappropriations, dereliction of duties etc, committed by the defector complainant and her husband. Her husband previously used to work as branch manager in Grameena Bank at Rajahmundry from whom the petitioner took charge while assuming charge as manager. By then, the defector complainant was working as clerk in Grameena Bank, Head Office situated in the upstairs of the same building. By the time of the petitioner assuming charge, she was already appointed as clerk-cum-cashier in Grameena Bank, Rajahmundry which is functioning in the down stair of the same building. The defector complainant''s husband was transferred to the Head Office, Grameena Bank after giving charge to the petitioner which institution is also located in the same building. One year thereafter he resigned the job and took another job elsewhere. While the petitioner is working at Rajahmundry the Andhra Bank inspection officials inspected the Grameena Bank, Rajahmundry specifically and found out serious irregularities alleged to have been committed during the tenure of the office of the defector complainant''s husband. There are certain allegations against the petitioner also regarding the money transactions and loans for which enquiries are being held by the concern. At that juncture there is change of Chairmanship and the present Chairman assumed charge for Grameena Bank.
The bail application moved by the petitioner came to be allowed on 20.01.2004. Smt. G. Vasantha Kumari, filed a private complaint against the petitioner and another. Sessions Case No. 131 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, which arises out of the private complaint filed by Smt. G. Vasantha Kumari, ended in acquittal on 31.10.2006. Pending trial of Sessions Case, the 1st respondent herein, who is the husband of Smt. G. Vasantha Kumari, filed a complaint before the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, u/s 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 500 IPC against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner made false and malicious allegations against him and his wife in the bail application with an intention to harm their reputation and thereby, he has been defamed and put to mental agony and humiliation. He came to know of the defamatory accusations on obtaining the copy of the bail application moved by the petitioner before the Sessions Court from the Advocate appearing on behalf of his wife. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of the 1st respondent-complainant and his wife Smt. G. Vasantha Kumari and took cognizance of the offence u/s 500 IPC against the petitioner and issued summons. The petitioner entered appearance before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry and filed Crl.M.P. No. 3851 of 2008 u/s 251 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. The said application ended in dismissal on 22.04.2009. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the petitioner seeking the prayer stated supra.
3. Heard Sri C.B. Ramamohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/complainant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the averments in the bail application filed by the petitioner do not constitute imputations against the 1st respondent-complainant or against his wife and the said averments are made to justify his case for grant of anticipatory bail. The averments are only to explain the motive for the wife of the 1st respondent-complainant for making false accusations against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the said averments are made in the interest of the petitioner and they are made in good faith before the Sessions Judge, to secure anticipatory bail. He would also contend that even if the whole of allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients of defamation, and therefore, there is no need of the petitioner to face trial in C.C. No. 611 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. He would further contend that the Sessions Case No. 131 of 2005, which arises out of the private complaint of Smt. Goli Vasantha Kumari, ended in acquittal on 30.10.2006 and the said acquittal reached finality as there being no appeal by Smt. Goli Vasantha Kumari. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Dr. Sabiha Sultana v. Dr. Mohd. Badruddin & Ors. 2008(1) ALD (Crl.) 252 (AP); Reporter, Eenadu Daily v. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.)731 (AP); and G. Janardhana Reddy v. A. Narayana Reddy & Anr. 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 198 (AP). Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel on para.7 of the judgment in G. Janardhan Reddy''s case (3 supra), which reads as hereunder:
7.On the other hand, the Supreme Court in
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/Complainant submits that even assuming that the imputation made could be covered by exception provided to Section 499 IPC, it can be examined on the basis of evidence in the trial and not in an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. He would further contend that the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of the complainant as well as the wife of the complainant before taking cognizance of the offence u/s 500 IPC, and therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence u/s 500 IPC without there being any material and without there being a satisfaction of prima facie case against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel by referring the imputations made by the petitioner in the bail application contends that the said imputations are defamatory and if the petitioner pleads that the said imputations are covered under any of the exceptions provided to Section 499 IPC, he has to face the trial and plead that he was protected under exception provided to Section 499 IPC. The burden, such as, it is, to prove that his case would come within that exception on him and therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No. 611 of 2004 pending on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, cannot be interdicted at this stage.
6. Section 499 IPC defines ''defamation'' and it is thus:
499. Defamation.-Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person''s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
7. The essential ingredients of defamation are: 1) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; 2) Such imputation must have been made by (a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visible representations; 3) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made.
8. In order to establish good faith and bona fides it has to be seen first the circumstances under which the defamatory matter was written or uttered; Secondly, whether there was any malice; Thirdly, whether the accused made any inquiry before he made the allegations; Fourthly, whether there are reasons to accept the version that he acted with care and caution and finally whether there is preponderance of probability that the accused acted in good faith.
9. The question is whether reading of the complaint, prima facie, satisfy the essential ingredients of defamation?
10. The petitioner pleaded in the bail application filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, that the complainant as well as his wife committed several irregularities in discharge of their duties and that the Andhra Bank inspection officials noticed serious irregularities alleged to have been committed by them. The petitioner further pleaded in the bail application that the 1st respondent/complainant committed several irregularities while working as Manager, Godavari Grameena Bank, Rajahmundry and when the action was about to be taken by the management, he resigned the job and joined in other organization. The imputations made by the petitioner in his bail application touching the integrity and honesty of the 1st respondent/complainant and his wife are, in my considered view, prima facie defamative in nature.
11. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the defamatory accusations contained in the bail application are not meant for publication and they are not accessible to any one other than the parties to the proceeding, in which case, it cannot be said that the alleged defamatory accusations affected the reputation of the 1st respondent/complainant. Learned counsel laid much emphasis on Explanation 4 of Section 499 IPC. In elaborating his arguments, it is contended that even the 1st respondent/complainant was not aware of the alleged defamatory accusations made by the petitioner in the bail application till he secured certified copy of the bail application moved by the petitioner from the advocate who appeared on behalf of his wife and that itself is sufficient to infer that there was no publication, in which case, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 611 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, amounts to abuse of process of law.
12. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be impressive on first blush, but on close scrutiny of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent/ complainant, I do not detain myself long to reject the same. The 1st respondent/complainant specifically pleaded in the complaint that the defamatory accusations made by the petitioner in the bail application put him to mental agony and humiliation and the contents of the bail application were made known to the advocates appearing for the parties, typist, who typed the bail application, the police and Public Prosecutor etc. He specifically pleaded in the complaint that the defamatory accusations made by the petitioner in the bail application defamed him and he suffered mental agony and humiliation. On a reading of the complaint, I do not think that it will be justified at this stage to quash the complaint. It is not the province of this Court to appreciate, at this stage, the evidence and scope and meaning of the statement. Whether the defamatory accusations made by the petitioner against the 1st respondent/complainant are covered by any of the exception to Section 499 IPC is a matter for the petitioner to plead and prove the same during the trial. In identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in
13. It is the settled legal position that a court has to read the complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations disclosed constitute an offence u/s 499 IPC triable by the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, in the instant case, recorded the sworn statement of the 1st respondent/complainant and his wife and after going through the sworn statements, took cognizance of the offence u/s 499 IPC against the petitioner and issued process. The statements recorded by the learned Magistrate speak of as to how the defamatory accusations leveled against the 1st respondent/complainant affected his reputation. The 1st respondent/complainant after resigning from the Godavari Grameena Bank, occupied a better position in some other private organization. Having regard to the facts of the instant case and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.N. Damani''s case (4 supra), I have no hesitation in holding that the complaint averments, prima facie, satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 499 IPC. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No. 611 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, cannot be quashed by this Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
