THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:12.02.2026 Between:

T. Narender Singh Bisain and another …Petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 2 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 in CC No.7631 of 2022 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

2. Heard Sri T.V. Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The grievance of the respondent No.2-complainant is that the petitioner has lodged a false complaint against the de facto complainant harming his reputation vide Crime No.529 of 2018. The contents of the complaint disclose that Crime No.529 of 2018 was registered based on the complaint made by the petitioners herein against the de facto complainant for the offences under Sections 420, 471, 467, 468, 409, 406, 120b read with 34 IPC against the complainant, his son, one Ajeeth Singh and B. Tikaram. The imputations in paragraph No.13 of the complaint in Crime No.529 of 2018 were extracted in the present complainant i.e. FIR No.42 of 2019, wherein it is alleged that the complainant along with other accused in Crime No.529 of 2018 have created false documents, diverted the funds of the M/s. Kshatriya Rajput Trust Board and utilized them into their personal business. Thus, the imputations in Crime No.529 of 2018 are alleged to have caused damage to their reputation and that they are humiliated in the society and hence have filed the present complaint. Based on which, Crime No.42 of 2019 is registered for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the imputations made in the complaint are covered under the exceptions laid down under Section 499 IPC and thus, they do not amount to any offence and hence, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant has submitted that the petitioners cannot make false allegations against the complainant and that they cannot get away under the shelter of exceptions, with malicious intention that the complaint under FIR No.529 of 2018 has been lodged by the petitioners making false allegations against the complainant. Therefore, they have to face the trial and the proceedings cannot be quashed.

6. Perused the record.

7. The imputations in FIR No.529 of 2018 at paragraph No.13 are alleged to be defamatory which gave rise to the present complaint for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, based on which CC No.7631 of 2022 is registered and the same is pending against the petitioners. The said sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

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 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, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.— No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation