M MALLA REDDY Vs. T VENKATRAMA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred by the original complainant Sri M. Malla Reddy, former Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University, Hyderabad being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 4-2-1999 passed in W. P. No. 28387/1998 : (reported in 1999 Cri LJ 1473). By the impugned order, the learned single Judge allowed the W. P. No. 28387/1998 and quashed the proceedings so far as it related to accused No. 1 T. Venkatrama Reddy, in C. C. No. 730/1996 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

(2.) The learned senior counsel Sri Malla Reddy appearing for the appellant-complainant contended that the learned single Judge has erred in quashing the complaint against the accused No. 1. He submitted that the complaint and the sworn statement recorded under S. 200, Cr.P.C. disclose a triable offence under S. 501, I.P.C. even as against accused No. 1. He elaborated his argument by taking us through the entire complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant and contended that on the basis of this complaint and sworn statement, an offence against accused No. 1 under Ss. 500, 501 and 502, I.P.C. read with S. 499, I.P.C. is made out. He further submitted that at the relevant point of time, the accused No. 1 was the Editor-in-Chief and his name as Editor-in-Chief was printed in the newspaper as required by the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 hereinafter referred to as 'the Press Act'). He further stated that a conspiracy is pleaded between the accused No. 1 and other accused, in publishing the defamatory articles against the complainant in "Deccan Chronicle". He stated that accused No. 1 was admitted to be the Chief Editor at the time the articles were published, even though the complainant alleged that he was the owner. The allegations whether there was or there was not a conspiracy can be ultimately decided only during the trial on the basis of the evidence and at this stage, the complaint cannot be quashed at all. The accused No. 1 and Editor-in-Chief was also liable along with the other Editor and Printer, who were also accused in the case. In support of his contentions, he relied upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court, which we will be considering in the course of this judgment.

(3.) The learned senior counsel Sri Mohamood Ali appearing for the accused No. 1 opposed the appeal and strenuously supported the impugned order of the learned single Judge. He stated that as held by the learned single Judge, the complaint does not disclose any offence as against accused No. 1 and accordingly the learned single Judge rightly quashed the impugned proceedings. He also relied upon certain judgments and these judgments also we will be considering in the course of this judgment.