Dismissed

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Another v. the State of Ap.,Rep. by Pp. High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC29 Aug 2018CRLP/8574/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a criminal petition seeking quashing of defamation proceedings. The court held the allegations unsupported the petition for quashing. The petition was dismissed, interim stay vacated, and direction given to lower court to not insist on petitioner presence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition dismissed; interim stay vacated; lower court directed not to insist on petitioners' presence.

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.8 5 7 4 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed, seeking for quash of the proceedings against the petitioners, who are A1 and A2, in C.C.No.1672 of 2010 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 499, 500, 504, 505(1)(b)(c) and 505(2) of IPC.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent. None appears for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents in spite of notice.

¶6

The allegations in the complaint are that petitioners have used abusive language against PRP Party and one Chiranjeevi garu. There are specific allegations made in the complaint that they have abused the said Chiranjeevi garu and that he has sold the party tickets and he is cheating the public etc.

¶7

Hence, it cannot be said that the allegations made by the petitioners do not amount to an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

¶8

With regard to the maintainability of the petition, the counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to support his contention that the petitioners do not have locus standi.

¶9

¶10

A reading of Section 499 IPC would show that it is not only the person against whom defamatory statement is made, that has to file a complaint, but any person can file a case for defamation on his behalf. The same can be understood from explanation (i) to Section 499 IPC, where even any imputation made against the deceased person is also an offence under Section 499 IPC.

¶11

Hence, in view of the above, this is considered as not a fit case for quashing the further proceedings. However, the plea of the petitioners’ counsel to dispense with the presence of the petitioners can be considered and the Court below is directed not to insist upon the presence of the petitioners unless it is necessary for the proceedings of the case.

¶12

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted by this court on 20.09.2011, in Crl.P.M.P.No.9238 of 2011, shall stand vacated.

¶13

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶14

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

¶15

August 29, 2018 LMV

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Another v. the State of Ap.,Rep. by Pp. High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Rajashekar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and Another v. the State of Ap.,Rep. by Pp. High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Othrs

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

K.v.Nageswara Rao and 2 Others Vs State of Ap., Rpe.Byis P.P and Anothers

Valluru Samba Siva Rao, Vs the State Rep by Its Pp and Another

K.Hari shankar Goud, Vs The State of A.P.

Devalanka Sesha Rao , Seshagiri Rao Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Tellamekala Srinivasa Rao and 2 Others Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P

Tellamekala Srinivasa Rao and 2 Others Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P