GUNDI VISHNU PRASAD Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.464 of 2002 pending on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhpatnam for the offence under Section 500 IPC.

(2.) The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint before the Magistrate alleging that he joined in ICICI Bank, Hyderabad as an out source employee and later transferred to Dwarakanagar, Visakhpatnam. The 1st petitioner (1st accused) is the Branch Manager, ICICI bank, Dwarakanagar branch, Visakhpatnam and the 2nd petitioner (2nd accused) is the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank, M.V.P. Colony branch, Visakhapatnam. While so, the 1st accused gave false information to the IV town police, Visakhapatnam against the complainant that three computers systems came from Corporate Office. Mumbai were stolen. Without giving a written report he managed and influenced the police to harass and insult the complainant. The complainant who is not aware of report/complaint given by the 1st accused attended the IV town police station, Visakhapatnam and explained his innocence and he is not at all concerned with the computers in any manner. The complainant was repeatedly called to the police station during the day and night and made him to wait in the police station hours together apart from questioning that he stolen and misused the debit card of one Sri Poornachandar Rao. Since the 1st accused went on influencing the police and tried to commit the complainant to bear an amount of Rs.8,500/- towards his share to purchase new computer system with the help of 2nd accused, they committed the offence of defamation and liable for punishment. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that entire reading of the private complaint made by the 2nd respondent on which basis Magistrate took cognizance of the offence does not indicate lodging of any complaint by the petitioners and its publication. Heard Mr.K.Suresh Reddy for respondent No.2 and Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

(3.) The essentials of defamation, generally must be proved by the plaintiff: