Disposed¶36

Radheshyam Jaju v. The State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC31 Jan 2025CRLP/4737/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Crl.P.No.4737 of 2019, decided 31-01-2025 by K. Surender, J. Keywords: Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing; cognizance under Section 204 Cr.P.C without application of mind/reasons set aside; defamation complaint under Section 500 I.P.C.; letter to Commissioner of Endowments; CC No.440, I Additional JMFC Nizamabad; interim stay order dated 14.08.2019 last extended 10.01.2024; parallels Criminal Petition No.3651 of 2023 dated 18.04.2023; parties Radheshyam Jaju v. State of Telangana and Om Prakash Modani.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cognizance order set aside, with liberty to the Magistrate to take cognizance afresh giving adequate reasons; Criminal Petition disposed of with no costs; miscellaneous applications, if any pending, directed to stand closed. ¶36

Radheshyam Jaju Vs The State of Telangana and Another — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.440 (2018/2019 as variously printed) pending before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C at the instance of the petitioner/accused. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The impugned order taking cognizance is set aside; however, setting it aside does not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance afresh giving adequate reasons.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is bereft of any reasoning as to what constitutes the offence under Section 500 I.P.C.

¶33

Key takeaways

Vaguely stating that there are sufficient reasonable grounds to try the accused will not suffice, since summoning a person in a criminal case and making him face trial is a serious matter.ratio¶33
Following its own earlier course in Criminal Petition No.3651 of 2023 dated 18.04.2023, where under similar circumstances proceedings were quashed because the cognizance order did not reflect application of mind, this Court treated the present cognizance order likewise.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused (Radheshyam Jaju) to quash proceedings arising out of a defamation complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. lodged by respondent No.2 (Om Prakash Modani), alleging that the petitioner addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Endowments containing allegations against him; complaint registered as CC No.440 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. Held (K. Surender, J.), allowing the challenge in effect: the Magistrate's cognizance order under Section 204 Cr.P.C was bereft of any reasoning as to what constitutes the offence; a vague recital of sufficient and reasonable grounds will not suffice, as summoning an accused to face trial is a serious matter. Applying this Court's earlier quashal in Criminal Petition No.3651 of 2023 (dated 18.04.2023) of a cognizance order lacking application of mind, the impugned order was set aside, without precluding the Magistrate from taking cognizance afresh with adequate reasons. Petition disposed of; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed. Decided 31-01-2025.

¶1

l32s1l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4737 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Radheshyam Jaju, S/o. late Sukh Dev Jaju, Age. 70 years, Occ. business, R/o. H.No.1-B-212, P.G.Road, Park Avenue Colony, Secunderabad - 500 003.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Building, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Om Prakash Modani, S/o. late Shri Satya Narayana Modani, Age. 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-6-50'1/66, Dwaraka Nagar, Nizamabad.

¶13

...Respondents/complainants'

¶14

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash Complainant namely CC No, 440 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

¶16

LA. NO: 1OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all the proceedings in CC No.440 oI 2018 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad including the appearance of the petitioner pending disposal of the Criminal Petition-

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 1410812019 in Crl.P.No.4737 of 2019 which was last extended on 1010112024.

¶20

..irl

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Mohan, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri li/ Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and of Sri Narasimha Murthy Gollamudi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL PDTITI ON No.4737 of 2OL9

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.C by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44O of 2Ol9 pending on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1/State. Perused the record.

¶28

.The petitioner was arrayed as accused in the complaint ftled by the complainant/respondent, for defamation under Section 500 of I.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he had addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Endowments, making several allegations against the respondent No.2/complainant.

¶29

+. After recording the submissions, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, which reads as under:

¶30

"Heard the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the complaint of the complainant ueified the statements of uitnesses and documents it appears from the euidences produced

¶31

¶32

that there are sufficient and reasonable grounds to carryout trial against dccused for the offeruce punishable under Section 5OO IPC hence, order is passed under Section 204 of Cr.P.C to register the complaint ond issue process against the accused on paAment of process. The copg of this complaint be fonuarded^{along uLith process. CaIl on 03.05.2019."}

¶33

The impugned order of the learned Magistrate is bereft of any reasoning as to what constitutes the offence under Section 50O of LP.C. Vaguely stating that there are sufficient reasonable grounds to try the accused will not sufhce, since summoning a person in a criminal case and to face the trial is a serious issue. Iir Criminal Petition No.3651 of 2023, dated 18.04.2023, under similar circumstances, this Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the order does not reflect application of mind while taking cognizance.

¶34

Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance is set aside. However, the order will not preclude the learned Magistrate from taking cognizance giving adequate reasons.

¶35

¶36

7 . The Criminal Petition is disposed of. No costs

¶37

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

¶38

stand closed.

¶39

Sd/- T. JAYASREE A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

'1. The I Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class, Nizamabad 2. The Station House Officer, iown _l police St"tion, Nizamabad 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High courrftr the stat,e oiTerangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶43