BUDDHA PRAKASH M JYOTHI Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 cr. P. C. seeking to quash further Proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C. C. No. 322 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and 2nd respondent. Perused the records.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner before the iii Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, vijayawada alleging offences under sections 166,167 and 506 IPC. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows: The accused is a civil servant, working as Sub-Collector cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vijayawada. On an application made by the complaint for allotment of proposed titles for running Telugu Weekly, the Registrar of newspapers for India allotted the title namely 'samagra Vaartha Vaara Patrika' on 30-12-2003. Pursuant thereto, the complainant filed declaration before the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Vijayawada on 12-1-2004. The accused issued a notice on 22-11-2004 directing the complainant to appear on 27-11-2004 and without giving an opportunity, the accused cancelled the declaration filed on 12-1-2004 on the ground that the complainant has changed the address of place of printing press. As against the said proceedings, the complainant filed an appeal before the Press and Registration (sic Board) of Books Act 1867. When the appeal was pending, the accused issued a notice on 12-1-2005 directing the complainant to appear on 17-1-2005 and renderaccounts of all advertisement charges that he has been receiving through various agencies. The complainant filed a writ petition questioning the said notice and the High Court while disposing of the writ petition, suspended the operation of the impugned notice dated 12-1-2005 pending disposal of the appeal before the Press and Registration Appellate board. The Board directed the appellant to file a fresh declaration and the Sub-Divisional magistrate to pass appropriate orders for authentication of the declaration and accordingly, complainant filedfresh declaration on 21-2-2005. The accused did not pass appropriate orders. The complainant filed writ petition in W. P. No. 4241 of 2005 seeking a direction to the accused to pass appropriate orders. The failure of the accused to pass appropriate orders for fresh declaration as directed by the Press and Registration Board with a mala fide intention to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant and amounts to disobedience to the directions of law. The accused has therefore committed offences punishable under Sections 166,167 and 506 ipc.