Criminal Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash criminal defamation proceedings. The Court observed that the trial court had taken cognizance and issued summons, making it not a fit case for quashing.
Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.581 of 2007 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5833 OF 2007.
Date:14-10-2009.
Between:-
Osuri Devendra Phanikar and another
..Petitioners/Accused
And
D.S.Murthy and another.
.. Respondents.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel on either side including the learned Public Prosecutor.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties are inter-related and there is a chequered history of litigation between them. Respondent No.1 filed three criminal cases against petitioner No.1 vide Cr.No.178 of 2003 of Narsapur Town Police Station, Cr.No.179 of 2003 of Narsapur Town Police Station and S.C.No.127 of 2005 on the file of Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 420 I.P.C., 354 and 506(2) I.P.C., and 354 and
506(2) I.P.C. respectively. Respondent No.1 also filed O.S.No.12 of 2002 on the file of Court of Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. Petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.185 of 2004 on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur against a person alleged to have been set up by respondent No.1 seeking injunction. Out of the above three criminal cases, the first and second ones are referred as “false” while the third one resulted in the acquittal of petitioner No.1. The partition suit in O.S.No.12 of 2002 was dismissed. O.S.No.185 of 2004 is pending after petitioner No.1 succeeded in obtaining an interim injunction order. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 also got a fresh statement published in Undeel Telugu weekly local newspaper, being published from Narsapur, West Godavari District. He further submitted that respondent No.1 also filed the present case C.C.No.581 of 2007 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad out of which, this Criminal Petition arises against the Editor of the Undeel Telugu Weekly local newspaper. The said Editor is said to be aged about eighty years now. Respondent No.1 also got a paper statement published in the said Undeel Telugu Weekly local newspaper on 21.06.2007 and it is contended that the same amounts to defamation of petitioner No.1. The learned counsel further submitted that the publication of the statements in the said newspaper are the facts which are already known to the public at large and as such, it does not amount to defamation. In these circumstances, the learned counsel prayed for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.581 of 2001.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 is not at all concerned with the criminal cases filed against petitioner No.1. He further contends that since petitioner No.1 has admitted the publication of
allegations against respondent No.1, the only remedy for him is in the trial Court where even the exceptions claimed by him may also be considered by the said Court. He further contends that the matter relating to evidential aspects would not fall within the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. All these matters may be raised, if advised so, before the trial Court. He also contends that since the matter is pending before the trial Court which has duly taken cognizance of the said matter of the complaint, summons were issued and the case is posted for trial, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
4. After hearing both sides including the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that since the trial Court has already taken cognizance of the matter and summons are issued by the trial Court and the matter stands posted for trial, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case for quashing or staying of all further proceedings in C.C.No.581 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad.
5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
B.N.RAO NALLA, J
14th October, 2009
AMD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings where the trial court has already taken cognizance and issued summons.
Whether publication of known facts in a newspaper amounts to defamation in criminal defamation proceedings.
Whether the matter is a fit case for quashing or staying of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Osuri Devendra Phanikar
D.S.Murthy
NALLA B.N.RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
