C PADMAIAH Vs. MANDADI VENKATA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel on record.

(2.) Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had advanced two contentions. The learned Counsel would maintain that the learned Magistrate in the light of Section 199 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in short hereinafter referred to as "Code", could not have taken cognizance on the strength of a complaint made by some other person other than the person aggrieved of the offence. The learned Counsel also would contend that even otherwise, Exception 9 of Sec. 499 IPC would be attracted and hence in any view of the matter, the proceedings in C.C.No.439/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet to be quashed.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri Sesha Sai, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent/complainant in C.C.No.439/2003 would maintain that not only defamatory allegations were made as against the person on whom the notice had been served, the said allegations were made even in relation to the 1st respondent/complainant who is none other than the son of the person to whom the said notice was addressed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the second ground that Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC would be attracted is predominantly a question of fact which may have to be decided at the appropriate stage.