1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners/A1 and A2 seek to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.75 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Puttur.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that petitioners/A1 and A2 entered into an agreement in the year 2006 with complainant for purchase of site situated in Nagaram road, Puttur, Chittoor District for Rs.21 lakhs and thereafter, the said agreement was terminated. Therefore, the petitioners developed enmity and grudge against the complainant and filed a complaint on 23.02.2008. The police after enquiry declined to take any action as it is a civil dispute. The 1st petitioner filed suit O.S.No.30 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati for specific performance of agreement. While so, 1st petitioner issued a public notice in Eenadu newspaper on 20.03.2008 indicating about filing of suit in respect of suit property and also an agreement executed by complainant and cautioned that alienation of suit properties or creation of sham documents will not be valid and parties to such transaction will be liable for the civil and criminal proceedings taken by the petitioners. The complainant annoyed with the notice issued by the 1st petitioner and filed compliant against the 1st petitioner and his son-2nd petitioner stating that publication of notice caused damage to his reputation and they are liable to be punished under Section 500 IPC.

Hence, the present Criminal Petition.

3. Heard arguments of Cherukuri Masthan Naidu, learned counsel for petitioners; Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for 1st respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State (AP).

4. Denouncing the complaint allegations as lacking the ingredients to constitute defamation in terms of Sections 499 IPC, learned counsel for petitioners, would argue in vehemence that admittedly the 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.30 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, against 1strespondent/complainant and one G. Subramanyam Reddy for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.12.2006 entered into by 1st respondent/complainant and G. Subramanyan Reddy with the 1st petitioner and the same is pending by the date of complaint. Along with the suit, she filed I.A.No.44/2008 seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants not to alienate the suit property pending suit. The Court posted the matter to 24.03.2008 for appearance of the defendants. In that context, the 1st petitioner through her counsel issued a paper publication informing to the public about the filing of the suit. Added to it, she issued caution in the interest of general public as well as the petitioners that any alienation of the suit properties or creation of sham documents will not be valid in view of the pendency of the suit and parties, who entered into such transactions will be liable for the civil and criminal proceedings to be taken up by the petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that such issuance of paper publication was in the interest of the public as well as the petitioners and not with an oblique motive of tarnishing the image of the 1st respondent/complainant as alleged. Since a civil dispute is pending between the parties, issuing of publication touching the pendency of the dispute in a Court of law, would by no means amount to defamation. He argued that the act of the petitioners would squarely fall under the tenth exception to Section 499 IPC. He would further argue that the allegation that the petitioners with an ill intention to damage the reputation of the 1st respondent/complainant got summoned him to police station on 23.02.2008 and police having found that the dispute between the parties was a civil litigation, did not like to intervene and sent them away is false and even if it is true by mere attending Police Station for some enquiry, cannot be regarded as damage to the prestige or reputation. He thus prayed to allow the peti