The point that arises for consideration in these two Criminal Revision Cases is:

“Whether the letter addressed by Accused No.2, the Company Secretary of Accused No.1 at Mumbai to the Lead Manager of the complainant at Mumbai allegedly containing scurrilous imputations to defame the complainant at Vijayawada who received the said letter forwarded by Lead Manager, will confer territorial jurisdiction on the Courts at Vijayawada to entertain the criminal case for defamation?”

2. Criminal Revision Case Nos.1781 and 1780 of 2017 are filed by A1 and A2 respectively in C.C.No.43 of 2010 challenging the common order dated 21.06.2017 in Crl.M.P.Nos.2212 and 2213 of 2017 in C.C.No.43 of 2010 passed by learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada dismissing the petitions filed by A1 and A2 under Sections 245 r/w 177 and 179 Cr.P.C. seeking to reject the complaints due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that 1st complainant is the Managing Director and 2nd complainant is the Chairman of M/s. Chemical Biotech Company Limited, Vijayawada. The said Company with an intention to go for public issue engaged M/s. Ashika Capital Limited based at Mumbai to be its Lead Manager for preparing prospectus for making public issue. In the course of preparing prospectus, M/s. Ashika Capital Limited, Mumbai sought information from A1 Company based at Mumbai regarding credentials of respondent/complainant Company. A2 being the Company Secretary of A1 based at Mumbai addressed a letter dated 14.12.2006 to M/s. Ashika Capital Limited making certain derogatory remarks against the complainant and marked copies to certain statutory authorities at Mumbai and New Delhi. M/s. Ashika Capital Limited forwarded the said letter to the respondents/complainants to their registered office at Vijayawada and the complainants having been felt defamed by the said letter filed the complaint. Both the accused filed Crl.M.P.Nos.692 and 693 of 2017 seeking to discharge them but those petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved, they preferred Crl.R.C.Nos.1015 and 1016 of 2017 before the High Court and they were disposed by order dated 12.04.2017 granting liberty to the petitioners to raise the question of jurisdiction before trial Court in pre-charge enquiry. Hence, the accused filed Crl.M.P.Nos.2212 and 2213 of 2017. The accused contended that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Court at Vijayawada except in Mumbai. It appears that they also took a plea that in O.S.No.12 of 2007 between respondents/complainants and petitioners/A1 and A2, the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissed the suit holding that the impugned letter was addressed to Lead Manager at Mumbai and the suit ought to have been filed at Mumbai and as such the Court at Vijayawada lacks territorial jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate however dismissed both the petitions with the observations, firstly that though the impugned letter dated 14.12.2006 sent by petitioners/A1 and A2 was received by M/s. Ashika Capital Limited at Mumbai however, the contents in the impugned letter affected the reputation of the complainant Company having its registered office in Vijayawada where the complainant Company received the impugned letter and hence the Court at Vijayawada has jurisdiction and secondly, against the judgment in O.S.No.12 of 2007 an appeal is pending and the matter is subjudice.

Hence the instant Criminal Revision Cases.

4. Heard both sides.

5a. Severely castigating the trial Court’s assuming the jurisdiction, learned senior counsel Sri D.V. Sitaram Murthy would argue even assuming that letter sent by A2 to M/s. Ashika Capital Limited did contain scurrilous remarks against the complainant and thereby attracted the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, still, he would emphasise, the Court at Vijayawada cannot entertain the criminal case for, it woefully lacks territorial jurisdiction. In expatiation, he would argue