A criminal appeal filed by a complainant seeking to set aside an acquittal in a defamation case. The High Court found the appeal lacked merits as the appellant failed to prove the legal notice was widely circulated to harm his reputation.
Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2019 dismissed; acquittal of the accused stands maintained.
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.
.ii
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 203 OF 2019
Crl. Appeal Under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. 1973 aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-10-2018 in CC No. 1720 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.
Between:
D. Ramesh Babu, S/o. D.Mallaiah, Aged 51 years, Occ - Architect. R/o1-7- 49611 11212, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500 020.
...APPELLANT/ Complainant
AND
Telangana.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI AMRUTHA SANJEEVA
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No. 1:
The Court delivered the followingJudgment:
i
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K,SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2O3 OF 2()19
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred being aggrieved lry the judgment dated 29 .1O.2018 passed by rhe XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, in C.C.No. l72O of 2OO9 whereunder, the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25.5(1) of Cr.p.C., stating that the complainant failed to prove the allegation of defamation against the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed praying ro set aside the judgment dated 29.10.2018.
2
KL,J&SKS,J Crl.A.No.2O3 of 20I9
Rs.11,5O,OO0/-. The accused after receiving the maximum sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,OO0/- requested the complainant to cancel the Agreement of Sale and take back the amount stating .thathis wife and family members are not willing to sell the property, as such, he issued cheque bearing No.637971 for arr amount of Rs.1O,OO,OOO/- drawn in ICICI Bank dated 26.09.2007 S.R. Nagar Branch, Hyderabad, towards return of sale consideration. The complainant accepted the same but the said cheque was dishonored. Subsequently, the complainant received notice dated 2O.O9.2OO8 from p.Ravi and two other Advocates, addressed to M/s.Ramdas Bhadriraj arrd L.N. Bhadriraj Advocates, Bolakpur, Secunderabad, and copy of the sarne was sent to complainant and two others by name Sri Sundam and Sri A.Sridhar. It is alleged that in the said notice, defamatory words were used against the complainant.
ti
KL,J&SKS,J Crl.A No 2O3 oI20 [9
l
l,
profession, the accused paintedhim as a moneylender,touching the conduct, characterand reputationof the complainantwith an intention to defamehim.Therefore, the complainant,in turn, got registered a case against theaccusedunderSection5OOof IPC alleging defamation.
respondent/ accused.
4
rt:
l t.
KL, J & SKS, Crl A No.203 of 2019
I(L,J&SKS,J Crl.A No.2O3 of 20 l9
9
5
directly sent to the said persons. Further, the trial Court erroneously presumed that the appellant/ complainant is a chronic litigant and the same has caused damage to his reputation. Therefore, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment dated 29.10.201g passed in C.C.No. 172 O ol 2OO9.
KL, J & SKS, Crl.A.No.203 of 2019
6
I i
notice. [n addition, he also admitted thathe filed cheating case against the respondent/accused whichwas closedstating that the matter is a civil dispute. Further,PW.1 admittedthat he has filed protest petition against the final report andthe samewas registered as C.C.No.17 of 2Oll and after hlingthe saidcase he has also filed defamarion case against the respondent/accused. Therefore, it can be said that there were severaltransactions between the appellant/complainant and respondent/accused and in view of the said transactions, Ex.Pl legal notice was issued.
'7
KL,J&SKS,J Cr LA No.2O3 of 20 19
7
intending to harm, or knotuing or Lnuing rea.son to belieue that such imputation uill harm the reputdtion of such person". However, there are set of exceptions for the same. One of the exceptions is imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published which says 'it is not defamation to impute angthing uhich is true conceming anA person, if it be for the public good that tLrc imputation should be made or published. WhetLer or not it is for th.e public good is a question of fact,.
8
III I I
KL, J & SKS, Crl.A.No2O3of 2019
'.ii
by hand. Further,none of the persons to whom the copies of Ex.P1 were marked,were examinedto prove that theyreceived Ex.Pl. Therefore, itcannot be said that Ex'Pl was circulated widely to several Persons.
2
KL,J&SKS,J Cr LA.No.2O3 of 2019
'l
9
Admittedly, the respondenr/ accused issued the Ex.pl notice for return of promissory note and cheque and the same is also admitted by PW. I himself during his cross examination. Therefore, it is clear that Ex.pI was not issued to defame the appellant/complainant and there is no force in the said contention. In view thereof, the appellant/complainant has failed to prove the allegations made against respondent/ accused.
Miscellaneous applications, if .any, pending in this
Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
To
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/4H. VENKATESWARALU, DEPUTY B€GIS'RAR ,/ secrroYoprrcen
kut k
wA4
I
t
II
HIGH COURT
SKSJ
DATED:1210212024
JUDGMENT
CRL.APEAL .No.203 ol 2019
.;Y{E S 14
( ot(
((
)
L'.,'(),- ? ,'r l:Afr ?024 ;
^', t{
ti'ras
-\ J.'eTCH -'
DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL
E..d.4 fr*
I
t
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the imputation in the reply legal notice defamed the appellant or was a defense related to pending transactions.
Whether the appellant proved that the reply legal notice was distributed to the public at large to harm his reputation.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
D. Ramesh Babu
L.Narasimha Rao
The State of Telangana
K. Sujana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
