Important Point—When a complaint is filed under Section 500 IPC, it must disclose each and every detail of such statements.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 180 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

2. Petitioners 1 to 4 filed this criminal petition on the ground that the Court ought not to have taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC, as it is barred by limitation and that the Directors of the company are not vicariously liable even if the alleged act of A-4 is accepted, for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

3. Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners 1 to 3 submitted that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation, in view of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. That apart, the accused 1 to 3 are not liable for any offence and thereby filing such complaint is nothing but abuse of process of the Court and prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 180 of 2016.

4. Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel appearing for the fourth petitioner reiterated the same contentions which the senior counsel has raised.

5. Sri N. Satyanarayana, party-in-person contended that the limitation starts from the date of acquittal for filing the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and the complaint was dismissed on 30.06.2015 and private complaint was lodged in the month of October, 2015. Thereby, the complaint is within limitation. Party-in-person has also further contended that when the entire proceedings were conducted in C.C. No. 706 of 2010 on behalf of the Directors, the Directors are also liable for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and that there exists sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

6. At this stage, it is relevant to advert to few facts in C.C. No. 180 of 2016 pending of the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada. The second respondent filed private compliant before the Court alleging that the first petitioner representing the company who is looking after the business affairs of the company filed earlier complaint C.C. No. 706 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada for various offences and the petitioners 2 to 7 (petitioners in C.C. No. 180 of 2016) are responsible for filing such complaint. It is also contended that after due persuasion of the matter, by sending complaints to this Court and to the Inspector General of Police, the trial in the case was completed and he was found not guilty for various offences and he was made to attend the Court for about 60 times.

7. It is also alleged that the accused 2 to 9 in C.C. No. 180 of 2016 made a paper publication in Andhra Jyothi Telugu daily newspaper on 04.08.2010 making defamatory statements against the second respondent herein, which caused substantial damage to the fame of the second respondent herein in the society, both in the family and in the business circle and due to publication of such news item on 04.08.2010, he sustained irreparable loss to his personality, which he cannot regain his position in the society. He also alleged that Accused 1 to 11 (petitioners in C.C. No. 180 of 2016), without following the rules, filed complaint and it has damaged his reputation not only before the business community, but also before the relatives and also within the family members in the society. Finally, it is alleged that, on account of filing complaint against him, the complaint itself is false and that all the petitioners are liable for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada by order dated 04.03.2016 took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC against all the petitioners (accused no 1 to 7 in C.C. No. 180 of 2016) while declining to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 193, 195, 499, 500, 506 & 102-B of IPC, as no prima facie case is made ou