Back
2014 Supreme(AP) 823
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J.
E. Laxmi Reddy – Petitioner
Vs.
The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P, Hyderabad and Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 8936 of 2011
Decided on: 01-08-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioners: Sri P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel, Sri Karri Murali Krishna
For 1st Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor
For 2nd Respondent: Sri J. Sudheer
Anonymous Complaint made against employees cannot be attributed to any individual/Association.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 500—Criminal procedure Code, 1973—Sections 197 and 482—Defamation---Sanction for prosecution—In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive—If allegations set out in complaint do not constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it is open to High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C---It is not necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of case before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal—Anonymous Complaint made against employees cannot be attributed to any individual/Association.
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 500—Criminal procedure Code, 1973—Sections 197 and 482—Defamation---Sanction for prosecution—Court has to take into consideration allegations made in complaint only while deciding petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.---Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain truthfulness or otherwise of allegations made in complaint at pre-trial stage---Allegations made in complaint, prima facie, constitute offence alleged to have been committed by petitioner for offence punishable under Section 500 IPC---Magistrate, after satisfying himself with material available on record, has taken cognizance offence against petitioner under Section 500 IPC---Trial Court has not committed any irregularity or illegality while taking cognizance of offence against petitioner—Criminal petition dismissed.
1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.616 of 2011 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Namapply, Hyderabad.
2. Sri P. Veera Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that institution of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is not maintainable for the following two grounds, viz., 1) Second respondent filed the complaint without following the due procedure as contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C; and 2) The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence, much less the alleged offence under Section 500 IPC.
3. Per contra, Sri J. Sudheer, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that there is no need to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 197 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that since the allegations made in the complaint satisfy the basic ingredients of Section 499 IPC, the complaint before the Court below is maintainable.
4. The second respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate, after following the due procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C, has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Section 500 IPC and issued process.
5. The second respondent worked as Additional Director of Civil Supplies and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. He also worked as president of Civil Supplies Welfare Association (hereinafter referred as the association) while he was in government service. The petitioner has been working as Assistant Director of Civil Supplies department, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. After retirement of the second respondent, the petitioner was elected as president of the Association. However, the 2nd respondent was elected as honorary president of the Association. The petitioner and the respondent are acting as president and honorary president of the Association. In course of time, disputes arose between them in connection with the day to day affairs of the association.
6. While things stood thus, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies on 20.04.2010 making some allegations against the second respondent. Being felt ashamed of the allegations made in the said letter, the second respondent filed the complaint before the court below. The above said fact is the root cause which made the petitioner and the second respondent to approach the criminal court as well as this Court.
7. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the filing of complaint by the second respondent is hit by the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C.
8. Section 21 IPC defines public servant. There is no doubt that the petitioner herein will fall within the scope of public servant, as defined under Section 21 IPC. But whether he is entitled to take shelter under Section 197 Cr.P.C has to be considered in the light of the alleged lis between the petitioner and the second respondent. The relevant portion of Section 197 Cr.P.C reads as follows:
197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-
(a) x x x x x x
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government.
(2) x x x x x x
(3) x x x x x x
(4) x x x x x x
9. A perusal of Section 197 Cr.P.C. at a glance demonstrates that this section was incorpora
