O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.73 of 2012, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet, Warangal District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners are questioning the proceedings against them for the offence under Section 500 of IPC. Petitioners herein are arrayed as A-14 and A-15, who are working as Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police respectively, in Narsampet town Police Station.

4. The 2^nd respondent filed complaint against 26 persons. According to him, defamatory and derogatory statements were made against him, alleging that he was seen in blue films and the said blue films were circulated. On the basis of news reports, which were published by the newspapers from 15.11.2009 to 20.11.2009, it is alleged that petitioner No.1, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case suo moto under Section 294-B of IPC. The publishers of news reports are A-1 to A-13. A-16 to A-26 were also arrayed as accused on the ground that they have undertaken agitations, raastha rokos in and around the town and also conducted dharnas in Narasampet town regarding alleged acts of 2nd respondent. The allegations against the 2nd respondent were found to be false and the crime registered by 1st petitioner/A-14 was closed for ‘lack of evidence’.

5. The offence alleged by the defacto complainant is under Section 500 of IPC. Defamation is defined under Section 499 of IPC. Section 499 of IPC reads as under:-

“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.”

6. The role attributed to these petitioners is that while they were working as public servants in Narsampet town Police Station, basing on the news items that were published in newspapers run by A-1 to A-13, suo moto crime was registered under Section 294-B of IPC, against the petitioners.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the said crime was closed as ‘mistake of fact’ on 22.12.2009. The registration of FIR is the duty of a police officer, who is a public servant.

8. To attract an offence under Section 499 of IPC, a person must have published any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing, or having reason to believe such imputation will harm the reputation of such person.

9. Nowhere, in the complaint, it is alleged that petitioners herein have indulged, in any manner, whatsoever making imputations against 2^nd respondent, except registration of FIR, on the basis of information through news items. Section 294 of IPC is a cognizable offence. The registration of FIR can be done suo moto. No malafides can be attached to the act of registering the FIR. In the said circumstances, when the petitioners have discharged their official duty, having came to know about the offence that occurred, it cannot be said that, registration of FIR amounts to defamation.

10. Only for the reason of subsequent closure of investigation, on account of there being no evidence, will not entail prosecution under Section 500 of IPC. Since none of the ingredients of defamation are made out, insofar as petitioners are concerned, petitioners succeed and the proceedings against them are quashed.

11. The Criminal Petition is allowed. Since the offence is of the year, 2009 and the complaint was filed in the year, 2012, the trial Court shall take steps to expedite the trial. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 24.02.2025 dv