THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:20.02.2026 Between:

Sri S. Radhakrishnan and 6 others.

…Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and others.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 in CC No.1293 of 2016 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, for the offences under Sections 120B and 500 read with

34 IPC.

2. The case of the complainants is that the petitioners have intentionally defamed the complainants and damaged their reputation and that the complainants have learnt that the petitioners have written derogatory and malicious letters to the Company’s (complainant No.1) customers i.e. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (MAHAGENCO), National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. (NTPC) etc., making false allegations, urging them to stop releasing payments by illegally using the letter heads of the Company. It is further alleged that they have also written a letter to the bankers of the Company i.e. Bank of Maharashtra by illegally using the letter head of the Company, alleging that the complainant No.2 had committed serious financial fraud, and asked the bank to recall the credit facilities given to the Company. Thus, the petitioners have approached several authorities defaming the Complainant No.1 Company and therefore, the complainants have filed the complaint against the petitioners, based on which, cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 120B and 500 IPC.

3. Heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri K. Rajendran, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially the complainants have filed a complaint against the petitioners herein and the same was taken cognizance of vide CC No.1264 of 2012 and that the petitioners have filed quash petition vide Crl.P. No.1096 of 2013 which was allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No.1264 of 2012 vide its order dated 04.02.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant approached the Apex Court vide SLP No.5350 of 2014 which was dismissed on 10.10.2014. He further submitted that the complainants have filed a suit in O.S. No.605 of 2014 alleging defamation and claiming a sum of Rs.1,05,57,749/- and the petitioners herein have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide I.A. No.959 of 2015 , which was allowed on merits holding that there is no cause of action for the suit and rejected the plaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that with the same set of allegations again the complainants have approached the trial court and filed a private complaint alleging defamation against the petitioners herein, which is gross abuse of process of law. He further submitted that lodging a second complaint with the same set of allegations is not tenable in the eye of law. He further has submitted that writing of letters to the bank or filing a case in NCLT does not amount to defamation and that the contents of the complaint do not attract the offence under Section 500 IPC and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ritesh Bawri and others v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6364

6. The leaned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the allegations in the defamation case can be proved only during trial and that the proceedings have to go on and cannot be quashed at the threshold. He further submitted that the respondents have ample material to prove the case of defamation against the petitioners and that the said defamation resulted in huge loss to the respondents.

He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Perused the record.

8.