Dismissed

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Anr., v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad and Anr.

Telangana HC3 Dec 2018CRLP/3922/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 499, 500 IPC alleging defamation. The court held that prima facie offences were attracted and refused quashing. It granted dispensation from personal appearance and vacated an interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Petitioners can appear by address; Court not to insist on personal presence unless necessary.

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Anr., Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T.RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TON No.3 9 2 2 OF 2 0 1 2

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed, by the petitioners, seeking for quash of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.663 of 2011 on the file of the court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The offences alleged are under Sections 499, 500, 504, 505(1)(b)(c) and 505(2) IPC.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent as well as the counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶6

The allegations in the complaint shows that the petitioners have conducted a press conference, wherein they alleged that the Chiranjeevi blood bank collected Rs.14 lakhs from the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2007-09 for his existence and that like any other blood bank, 2^nd respondent Blood Bank also received blood bags and reagents from the National Aids Control Organization (NACO), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. It was also alleged that the petitioners in the said press conference has stated that injustice is being done to the public and that there is only a show of charity and no charity work is being done by the Blood Bank.

¶7

The above allegations, which are made before the press, would only suggest that the petitioners had some intention to defame the 2^nd respondent, as they are no way concerned with

¶8

¶9

the blood bank or its affairs. However, the truth of the said allegations has to be gone into only at the time of trial. Prima facie , it appears that the alleged offences are attracted and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioners.

¶10

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the plea of the petitioners’ counsel that the presence of the petitioners may be dispensed with, can be considered by directing the Court below not to insist upon the presence of the petitioners unless it is necessary for the proceedings of the case. Interim stay granted by this court by order dated, 23.04.2012, in CRLPMP No.4070 of 2012, shall stand vacated.

¶11

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

¶12

shall stand closed.

¶13

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T.RAJANI , J

¶14

December 3, 2018 LMV

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Anr., v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Anr., v. the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teekaram Singh Vs the State of A.P

Sri Punna Sattaiah and Another Vs the Drugs Inspector, and Another

Byrisetti Satyanarayana Vs The State of Ap., rep by its Public Prosecutor

T.Dhananjayulu, Chittoor District and 7 Others Vs State, Rep. by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Others

G.Hari Karishna Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Mohammed Syfuddin Shareef, Vs Mohd. Kauser Jaha