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 bas