SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1136

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Vennam Jyothi Surekha – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 7877 of 2019
Decided On : 04-08-2022

The court held that the statements made by the petitioners were prima facie defamatory and that whether the petitioners made such imputations in good faith or not was a question of fact to be decided during the trial.

Headnote:

DEFAMATION - COACH - IMPUTATIONS - GOOD FAITH - SECTION 499 IPC - SECTION 500 IPC - SECTION 482 CRPC - COURT'S INHERENT POWERS - SCOPE AND EXTENT - CANCELLATION OF PROCEEDINGS - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, a daughter and her father, were accused of making defamatory statements against the complainant, a coach, in a press conference. The complainant alleged that the petitioners falsely claimed that he was not a coach but only a hostel warden, and that his son, who was also an archer, was not a coach either. The petitioners contended that the statements were made in good faith and fell within the Eighth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the statements made by the petitioners were prima facie defamatory and that whether the petitioners made such imputations in good faith or not was a question of fact to be decided during the trial. The court further held that the allegations in the private complaint, coupled with the sworn statement of the complainant, made out a prima facie case for the offenses alleged.

Issues: 1. Whether the statements made by the petitioners were defamatory? 2. Whether the petitioners made the statements in good faith, falling within the Eighth Exception to Section 499 of the IPC?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the statements made by the petitioners were prima facie defamatory because they falsely claimed that the complainant was not a coach but only a hostel warden, and that his son, who was also an archer, was not a coach either. The court noted that a coach is on par with a teacher or mentor, and that calling a coach a hostel warden would be demeaning. 2. The court held that whether the petitioners made the statements in good faith was a question of fact to be decided during the trial. The court noted that the Eighth Exception to Section 499 of the IPC provides that it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of the accusation. However, the court held that the petitioners' contention that they made the statements in good faith was a disputed question of fact that could not be resolved at the present stage.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' petition to quash the criminal proceedings against them.

JUDGMENT

1. "Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha; Guru saakshat Para brahma Tasmai Sree Gurave Namaha" 'Guru', a Sanskrit term, is known as mentor, guide, expert or master of certain knowledge or field. In panindian traditions, a 'Guru' is on par with Teacher. Traditionally, 'Guru' is a reverential figure to the disciple or student. With 'Guru' serving as a counselor, who helps mold values or shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual evolution of a student.

By all means, a 'Guru' or 'Teacher' is a remover of darkness and is the harbinger of enlightenment. Since 'Guru' leads to a path of light, 'Guru' is that Para Brahma. 'Tasmai Shree Guruve Namah' means we bow to that Guru. Mythologically, 'Guru' is embodied on Para Brahma, an element of God.

2. This Criminal Petition, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'), is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1725 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Petitioners herein are A.1 and A.2, and 2nd respondent herein is the complainant, in the said Calendar Case.

3. 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein, alleging as follows. Petitioner No.1/A.1 is daughter of petitioner No.2/A.2. 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is a Coach to A.1. He started giving training in archery to the persons who are interested in archery and he continued the same till 2005. He started Archery Academy of his own under the name and style "Cherukuri Volga Archery Academy" and that he is the Founder and Chief Coach of the same. His dream is to promote poor persons and orphans, who are interested in archery, from all over India, as world-class archers. In such a passion, he trained several students to become the best archers in the world. His son by name Lenin had become an International Archer, Asia Gold Medalist, Indian Archery Coach, Common Wealth Games and Level-III Coach in the World Archery. Son of defacto complainant met with an on-to-ward incident in the year 2010 and died. 1st petitioner/A.1 is basically a Swimmer. In the month of April, 2007, one M.Koteswar Rao and others introduced A.1 to defacto complainant and requested him to train her, saying that she is a middle class girl, having talent and good manners. Both the accused and friends of defacto complainant undertook that A.1 and A.2 would behave with good manners and discipline and would learn archery. Accordingly, the defacto complainant had agreed for the same and A.1 was under training with defacto complainant and his son. Later, A.1 became Champion under the training of the defacto complainant and participated in 19 National and 12 International championships and bagged number of National and International medals apart from State Level, in different age groups. It is stated that A.1 bagged totally 60 medals. Defacto complainant and his son spent most of their valuable time for training A.1 and also spent lakhs of rupees towards her training from 2007 to 2013. He provided world class equipment viz. Bows and Arrows, etc. which are required for training, to her, and till today, A.1 is in the possession of the equipments of defacto complainant and she did not return them so far. Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Rt. No.154, dtd. 3/5/2018 whereunder an amount of Rs.76.53 lakhs was sanctioned towards cash incentive to A.1, out of which, an amount of Rs.61.53 lakhs was to A.1 and the remaining amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs to the defacto complainant, as a Coach (Basic Coach). It is averred that as per the Sports Policy, the State Government sanctioned the same in favour of the defacto complainant. On a representation made in this behalf by the accused questioning the authorities as to how Rs.15.00 lakhs was sanctioned to the defacto complainant, the authorities issued another G.O. Rt. No.158, dtd. 7/5/2018 modifying the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top