Point of Law: even in the complaint, there is no averment that other persons read the counter. As such it would not in any way come within the purview of defamation under Section 499 IPC.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.496 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, YSR District.

2. The facts averred in the present Criminal Petition are that 2nd respondent/complainant in C.C.No.496 of 2014 filed complaint seeking to punish the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) i.e. for defamation, on the ground that they have made defamatory statement in the counter filed by 2nd petitioner herein, in I.A. No.413 of 2013 in O.S.No.45 of 2009, which is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty, where suit is filed by 2nd respondent/complainant against 2nd petitioner herein, who is arrayed as 2nd defendant, and others seeking specific performance of agreement of sale. 1st petitioner herein is the counsel for 2nd petitioner herein before the court below.

It is stated that as 2nd respondent herein, who is plaintiff in the suit, could not file his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief, the learned Senior Civil Judge closed the evidence on his behalf in O.S.No.45 of 2009 on 14.11.2013. Thereafter, 2nd respondent herein filed I.A.No.413 of 2013 along with affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief, praying to reopen the evidence in the said suit on the ground that he was held up at Hyderabad during the relevant point of time in connection with W.P.No.30209 of 2010 pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

It is also stated that a counter was filed in I.A.No.413 of 2013 by the 2nd petitioner herein stating that the averments that the complainant is a practicing Advocate in Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad and he attended the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in connection with W.P.No.30209 of 2010 on 14.11.2013 and hence, he was unable to attend the Court on 14.11.2013, are absolutely false; the complainant is a retired Lecturer and he is in the habit of filing false cases by creating forged documents and he is intentionally delaying the proceedings in the suit.

Aggrieved by the said statements, the 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and registered it as C.C. No.496 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 499 I.P.C. and issued summons to the petitioners herein.

3. This Court, vide order, dated 24.4.2015, granted interim stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.496 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty, YSR District.

4. Notices in the Criminal Petition were served on the 2nd respondent/complainant on 28.08.2015, but there is no representation for the 2nd respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and perused the entire material available on record.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the averments made in the counter filed in I.A.No.413 of 2013 in O.S.No.45 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty, are only with a view to bring it to the notice of the Court that the 2nd respondent herein/complainant, who is plaintiff in the suit before the Court below, was taking time on one pretext or the other, and thus, by any stretch of imagination, the averment in the counter that the 2nd respondent herein/complainant was a practicing Advocate in Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad and he attended the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in connection with W.P.No.30209 of 2010 on 14.11.2013 and as such he could not attend the Court in the suit on 14.11.2013, is absolutely false, cannot be construed as a defamatory and the same would not come within the purview of Section 499 IPC. He contended that the statement made in the counter before the learned Senior Civil Judge Court in I.A.No.413 of 2013 that the 2nd respondent/complainant is taking time would