DAVID PAUL MORADITH Vs. JUDITH MARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitiorier invokes the inherent powers of this court u/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 372/2001 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) A brief resume of background of facts is necessary. The petitioner is the Principal of International School of Hyderabad, situated at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent - defacto-complainant is the Office Manager in the said school at the relevant point of time. The petitioner was in-charge of day-to-day administration of the school. The 1st respondent is said to have submitted her resignation under a letter dt. 5-3-2001 addressed to the Board of ISH. She has also submitted the resignation letter to the petitioner and sought his permission even earlier than two months stipulated time. It appears that the petitioner has placed the 1st respondent under suspension by a letter dated 20-3-2001 pending full investigation in to the alleged misappropriation of school funds for making unauthorized international telephone calls to Maldives. The petitioner has also circulated a letter on the same day to all the parents to that effect. He also assured the parents that he had to take the said step as the financial condition of the school was in a very bad shape. Thereafter, the 1st respondent presented a complaint before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner u/Secs. 2(d) and 199 {1), r/w Section 200 for the offence u/Section 499 r/w 500 IPC and the same was registered as C.C.No. 372/2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the proceedings of the learned Magistrate on the ground that circulation of a letter to all the parents will fall under exceptions 1,9 and 10 of Sec. 499 IPC and no offence is made out in the complaint. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent mainly contends that the averments made in the complaint constitute an offence of defamation. He further contends thatburden is on the accused to show that exceptions to Sec. 499 IPC will attract the present facts of the case. He further contends that whether circulation of a letter fall under exceptions to Sec. 499 IPC can be decided during the time of trial. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that defence of accused cannot be entertained and considered by this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings while exercising the inherent powers.