S MOHANA RAO Vs. HANUMANTHU RAJAGOPALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/A-1 in C.C.No.91/2005 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter in short referred to as "Code", praying for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that for certain offences the bar under Section 195 of the Code would be attracted and for certain other offences the ingredients are not satisfied and at any rate the allegations made may be in relation to the other accused and not in relation to the petitioner/A-1.

(2.) The 1st respondent/complainant filed a private complainant under Section 200 of the Code as against the four accused stating that the accused committed offences under Sections 193, 196, 34, 109, 120-B, 218, 357 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) hereinafter in short referred to as "IPC".The petitioner/A-1 at present is a Junior Civil Judge and at the relevant point of time a practising Advocate. It is no doubt stated that A-2 at the instance of A-1 had proceeded with some prosecution and A-3 and A-4 also had in a way influenced A-2 and assisted A-1 in such illegal acts. The case was taken on file by the learned Magistrate against A-1 to A-4 under Sections 500, 357, 218, 196, 193, 109, 120-B r/w. Section 34 IPC.

(3.) Contentions of Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy: Sri Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the allegations made in the complaint in relation to the offences under Sections 34,109 and 120-B IPC are more or less general in nature and there are no specific allegations and the allegations are vague. The learned Counsel also would maintain that as far as the offences under Sections 193 and 196 IPC are concerned, the bar imposed by Section 195 of the Code would come into play and hence the very taking of cognizance of such offences by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the complaint and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the averments made, so far as the petitioner/A-1 is concerned, the ingredients of Sections 218 and 357 IPC also are not satisfied. The learned Senior Counsel also would maintain that the allegations relating to the offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC were made as against the petitioner/A-1 on the ground that in a prior proceeding a false case had been thought of which ended in acquittal at the appellate stage and the same was confirmed at the Revisional stage. The learned Counsel would maintain that as far as the publication made by Andhra Jyothi Newspaper is concerned, the allegation is in relation to A-2 and no doubt it is stated that this was done at the instance of A-1. Viewed from any angle, on the ground that some benefit of doubt was given in a criminal proceedings it cannot be said that such allegation would prima facie constitute an offence of defamation and the learned Senior Counsel would contend that none of the ingredients specified under Section 499 and 500 IPC are attracted. In any view of the matter, it is just abuse of process of Court and process of Law as well and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed.