ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.162 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narsapur for the offences under Sections 211 and 500 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²

2. Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel Representing Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.G.Manasa, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State is in attendance.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Accused No.3 herein is the wife and Accused No.2 is the father-in-law of Respondent No.2 herein and Accused No.1 is the friend of Accused No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that, it is alleged against the Petitioners that they colluded together and lodged a false case against Respondent Nos.2 and 3, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC, which was ended in acquittal. It is submitted that the revision preferred against the judgment of acquittal was also dismissed. Then, the husband filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur seeking damages of Rs.2.00 Crores with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. Learned counsel would further submit that, 1 for short „Cr.P.C‟

for short „IPC‟

during pendency of the said suit, I.A.Nos.1089, 1090 and 1091 of 2018 filed by the Defendants therein, who are the Petitioners herein under Order XXV Rule 1 CPC were allowed. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein being the Plaintiffs, filed I.A.Nos.433, 434 and 435 of 2019 to review the orders passed in the above petitions, and the same were dismissed on merits on 18.12.2019. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein as Plaintiffs in the said suit, failed to furnish the security for the costs of the suit to the Defendants as directed. It is submitted that the suit was dismissed without costs in the circumstances of the case. Learned counsel would further submit that, a private complaint has been filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein for the offences under Sections 109, 120B, 191, 192, 193, 211, 420, 466, 468, 499 read with 34 IPC against the Petitioners herein, and the same was referred to the Police for registration of the case and investigation. The Police after investigation, referred the case as civil in nature. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed a protest petition. Learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statements of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 211 and 500 IPC against the Petitioners herein. It is submitted that, in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 211 IPC. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would further submit that, acquittal from the criminal case does not automatically give right to the Accused to lodge a criminal case for defamation. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Section 500 IPC against the Petitioners. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is sheer abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sh.Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Others, [Crl.Appeal No.211 of 2019, dated 04.02.2019] and the High Court of Madras in A.Radhika vs. Wilson Sundararaj, [Crl.O.P.No.2514 of 2020, dated 26.02.2021] 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that, the case which was lodged by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC was ended in acquittal. The revision preferred against the sa