ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.200 of 2019 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The 2^nd respondent who worked as Senior Civil Judge and retired as Additional District Judge, lodged a private complaint against the petitioner before the Magistrate Court.

3. From the complaint, the defamatory publication is extracted as follows:

“In fact P.B.S.Charless having two sons one by name Vinod and another Vikram. When in matrimonial matter of Vinod some disputes was arose between the wife of Vinod and his wife Nuthalapati Priyanka, D/o.Nuthalapati Prasad, my client was not cooperate as per the demand of P.B.S.Charless in settlement of above said dispute in respect of his son Vinod, he developed bore grudge against my client and hatched a plan to harass my client and used to No.1 of your client as a tools and P.B.S.Charless with an intention to dissolve the marriage between No.1 of your client and my client, he want to remarry to No.1 of your client with his son i.e., Vinod who was divorced and he successfully made No.1 of your client wantonly desert my client and she has been separately living from my client since 2014.”

4. The said words were written in the notice sent by the accused as a reply to the notice sent by accused’s wife.

5. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reply to the legal notice is a private communication between husband and wife and it will not amount to publication as required under Section 499 of IPC, so as to make it punishable under Section 500 of IPC.

6. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd.Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K, [(2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 615] held that, whether the publication amounted to defamation or not can be decided after recording the evidence at the time of trial, and the same cannot be a subject matter under Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

7. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of High Court of Delhi in Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, [2006(87) DRJ 603] 8. Section 499 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:

“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 excepted, to defame that person.”

9. Defamation occurs when imputation is made concerning any person in a manner that is likely to be read. It is not the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the imputation made, falls within any of the exceptions under Section 499 of IPC. Reply to the legal notice was sent to the counsel who is an advocate and the reply notice would be read by the counsel and probably by the other associates also. It is not a communication directly addressed to the wife to say that such a reply does not amount to any publication intended to be read by others. Since the reply to the notice, in which the alleged imputation was made was sent to an advocate, who is a third person, the proceedings cannot be quashed. It is for the trial Court to decide on the facts of the case, whether the offence of defamation is made out or not.

10. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed.

__________________

K.SURENDER, J Date:12.02.2025 tk