ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned party-in-person/2nd respondent.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.145 of 2016 on the file of the Learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, East Godavari District.

3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint under Sections 190(1)(a) & 200 Cr.P.C against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 499 , 500 and 501 R/w Section 34 of IPC.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2, inter alia contended that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, though the ingredients of Sections 499 and 501 of IPC are not attracted. He submits that while publishing a News item in respect of General Elections, 2014 of Andhra Pradesh Assembly in the year 2014 in Varatha Daily Newspaper an inadvertent mistake occurred in reporting the News. It was mentioned/published on 17.05.2014 that the B.S.P candidate/2nd respondent secured 1,039 votes, but noticing the same, within 4 days a News item was published on 21.05.2014 stating that in the News item dated 17.05.2014 by mistake it was published that B.S.P candidate got 1,039 votes, but it is 1,938 votes. The learned counsel submits that the subsequent publication of News item on 21.05.2014 would go to show that it is only an inadvertent mistake that occurred while publishing the News item and there is no intention, much less, ill intention on the part of the petitioners to cause any harm or disrepute or defame the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel would further submit that assuming without conceding, mere wrong mentioning of votes, under any stretch of imagination, cannot be treated as defamatory and therefore Section 501 of IPC is also not attracted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, he submits that the complaint itself is lacking in bona fides and continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners, more particularly, after publication of News on dated 21.05.2014 pointing out the mistake committed in publishing the News item dated 17.05.2014 is not warranted and seeks to quash the same.

5. The learned party-in-person on the other hand submits that the publication of News item by mentioning the number of votes less than what were actually secured by him amounts to defamation, intended to effect his reputation and therefore the learned Magistrate is justified in proceeding with the matter. He also submits that the name of the political party i.e., ‘Bahujana Samaj Party’ was wrongly mentioned as ‘Bahujana Samaj Vadi Party’ though the petitioners are well aware of the party’s name, with a mala fide intention. He submits that in any event, it is a case where the Trial Court should be allowed to proceed with the Trial, instead of interfering with the same, as pleaded by the petitioners. Making the said submissions, the learned party-in-person seeks dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

6. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Law, extracted hereunder for ready reference:

Sec.499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Explanation:

Explanation 1 - It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2 - It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3 - An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, m