Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vennam Jyothi Surekha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 August, 2022
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7877 of 2019
ORDER :-
"Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha;
Guru saakshat Para brahma Tasmai Sree Gurave Namaha"
'Guru', a Sanskrit term, is known as mentor, guide, expert or master of certain knowledge or field. In pan- indian traditions, a 'Guru' is on par with Teacher. Traditionally, 'Guru' is a reverential figure to the disciple or student. With 'Guru' serving as a counselor, who helps mold values or shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual evolution of a student.
By all means, a 'Guru' or 'Teacher' is a remover of darkness and is the harbinger of enlightenment. Since 'Guru' leads to a path of light, 'Guru' is that Para Brahma. 'Tasmai Shree Guruve Namah' means we bow to that Guru. Mythologically, 'Guru' is embodied on Para Brahma, an element of God.
2
2. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC'), is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1725 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Petitioners herein are A.1 and A.2, and 2nd respondent herein is the complainant, in the said Calendar Case.
3. 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein, alleging as follows.
Petitioner No.1/A.1 is daughter of petitioner No.2/A.2. 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is a Coach to A.1. He started giving training in archery to the persons who are interested in archery and he continued the same till 2005. He started Archery Academy of his own under the name and style "Cherukuri Volga Archery Academy" and that he is the Founder and Chief Coach of the same. His dream is to promote poor persons and orphans, who are interested in archery, from all over India, as world-class archers. In such a passion, he trained several students to become the best archers in the world. His son by name Lenin had become an International Archer, Asia Gold Medalist, Indian Archery Coach, Common Wealth Games and Level-III 3 Coach in the World Archery. Son of defacto complainant met with an on-to-ward incident in the year 2010 and died.
1st petitioner/A.1 is basically a Swimmer. In the month of April, 2007, one M.Koteswar Rao and others introduced A.1 to defacto complainant and requested him to train her, saying that she is a middle class girl, having talent and good manners. Both the accused and friends of defacto complainant undertook that A.1 and A.2 would behave with good manners and discipline and would learn archery. Accordingly, the defacto complainant had agreed for the same and A.1 was under training with defacto complainant and his son. Later, A.1 became Champion under the training of the defacto complainant and participated in 19 National and 12 International championships and bagged number of National and International medals apart from State Level, in different age groups. It is stated that A.1 bagged totally 60 medals.
Defacto complainant and his son spent most of their valuable time for training A.1 and also spent lakhs of rupees towards her training from 2007 to 2013. He provided world class equipment viz. Bows and Arrows, etc. which are required for training, to her, and till today, A.1 is 4 in the possession of the equipments of defacto complainant and she did not return them so far.
Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Rt. No.154, dated 03.05.2018 whereunder an amount of Rs.76.53 lakhs was sanctioned towards cash incentive to A.1, out of which, an amount of Rs.61.53 lakhs was to A.1 and the remaining amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs to the defacto complainant, as a Coach (Basic Coach). It is averred that as per the Sports Policy, the State Government sanctioned the same in favour of the defacto complainant. On a representation made in this behalf by the accused questioning the authorities as to how Rs.15.00 lakhs was sanctioned to the defacto complainant, the authorities issued another G.O. Rt. No.158, dated 07.05.2018 modifying the earlier G.O.Rt. No.154. On the same date, both the accused gave statements in the print media in all largest circulated news papers such as Eenadu, Saakshi, Andhra Jyothi and other papers and Electronic media viz. TV9, AP 24/7 and other channels stating that the defacto complainant is not a Coach to A.1 and that he is only a Hostel Warden to her; his son is only an Archer and he is also not a Coach to her. Both the accused stated that wife of the defacto complainant is a female cook, etc. It is stated 5 in the complaint that though A.1 was well trained under the defacto complainant as a Coach, both the petitioners made baseless, fallacious and defamatory statements which hurt the feelings of the defacto complainant. Those statements not only caused damage to the reputation of the defacto complainant in the Archery world, but also his deceased son. Stating so, the private complaint was filed by the defacto complainant before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
4. On 09.05.2019, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint as C.C. No.1725 of 2019 after perusing the sworn statement and the record, for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 406 read with 34 IPC against A.1 and A.2, observing that there is prima facie case as against A.1 and A.2. Seeking to quash the proceedings in the said Calendar Case, the present Crimial Petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that defacto complainant was compared to a Hostel Warden, and by any stretch of imagination, calling by the word 'Warden' is not defamatory. Saying so, he further contended that Warden has got a place in the society, and 6 the imputation calling the Coach as Warden would not in any way come within the purview of defamation. He further submitted that the said imputation would come within the purview of good faith, under Eighth Exception of Section 499 IPC, and when an accusation is made in good faith, such an accusation would not come within the purview of defamation.
6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that the imputations made by the petitioners are prima facie defamatory and whether the petitioners made such imputation in good faith or not, is a question of fact and the same has to be decided in the course of trial.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon 7 an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.1, wherein the Apex Court held, "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;1
AIR 1992 SC 604 8 (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the 9 proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. Admittedly, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is a Coach to 1st petitioner/A.1. There is no dispute with regard to the said fact. 1st petitioner/A.1 has been trained under 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and his son. The same has not been denied or disputed in the petition filed by the petitioners. A Coach is on par with a Teacher, Mentor, etc. to a student. Having acquired knowledge of Archery from 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, petitioners went to the extent of bagging more than 60 medals in various championships at State, National and International. It is an admitted fact that so as to run an Academy and to fetch new equipment, one has to spend lakhs of rupees. A Coach, who is on par with Guru, would be having specialized knowledge in his field. A Coach is one's spiritual guide and helps one to discover the same potentialities that the Coach has already realized. Having learnt the basic techniques from 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant and his son, 1st petitioner/A.1 had called for a press conference and stated that he is not a Coach to her and is only a Hostel Warden to her. She 10 further stated that he has been causing obstacles to her from selecting in international events and that his son, who is no more now, is only an Archer and is not a Coach to her. She further averred that 2nd respondent/defacto complainant's wife is a female cook. The same has been telecasted in different print media channels and on the next day, it has been widely circulated in news papers.
10. 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has got issued a legal notice dated 24.05.2018, calling upon the petitioners to tender unconditional apology and to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 crores towards compensation. The petitioners got issued a reply notice dated 05.07.2018 to 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant got filed Original Suit No.208 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada against the petitioners herein, claiming compensation/ damages, and subsequently the same was transferred to the file of the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that calling 2nd respondent/defacto complainant as 'Warden' would not in any way come within the purview of defamatory statement for the reason that Warden has also 11 got a place in the society, and if he is called as 'Warden', it would not in any way demean his name. Calling a person other than what he is, causes irksome. At the cost of repetition, calling a Coach, who is on par with a Guru, with a name other than what he is, would certainly cause pestiferous.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the subject imputation has been made in good faith and it would come within the purview of Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC. He relied on a decision in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam2, wherein it is held thus:
(paragraph No.7) "7. The next question that arises for consideration is whether reading the complaint and the report of the Treasury Officer which was obtained pursuant to the Order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) of Section 201, can it be said that a prima facie case exists for trial or Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly applies and consequently in such a case, calling upon the accused to face trial would be a travesty of justice. The gravamen of the allegations in the complaint petition is that the accused persons made a complaint to the Treasury Officer, Amravati, containing false imputations to the effect that the complainant had come to the office in a drunken state and abused the Treasury Officer, Additional Treasury Officer and the Collector and circulated in the office using filthy language and such imputations had been made with the intention to cause damage to the reputation and services of the complainant. In order to decide the correctness of this averment, the Magistrate instead of issuing process had called upon the Treasury Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report and the said Treasury Officer did 2 (1999) 3 SCC 134 12 submit a report to the Magistrate. The question for consideration is whether the allegations in the complaint read with the report of the Magistrate make out the offence under Section 500 or not. Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860 defines the offence of defamation and Section 500 provides the punishment for such offence. Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation. The report of the Treasury Officer clearly indicates that pursuant to the report made by the accused persons against the complainant, a departmental enquiry had been initiated and the complainant was found to be guilty. Under such circumstances the fact that the accused persons had made a report to the superior officer of the complainant alleging that he had abused the Treasury Officer in a drunken state which is the gravamen of the present complaint and nothing more, would be covered by Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Penal Code, 1860. By perusing the allegations made in the complaint petition, we are also satisfied that no case of defamation has been made out. In this view of the matter, requiring the accused persons to face trial or even to approach the Magistrate afresh for reconsideration of the question of issuance of process would not be in the interest of justice. On the other hand, in our considered opinion, this is a fit case for quashing the order of issuance of process and the proceedings itself. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and confirm the order of the learned Sessions Judge and quash the criminal proceeding itself. This appeal is allowed."
Whether the words stated by the petitioners would come within the purview of Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC or not, is a disputed question of fact and the same has to be decided during the course of trial. The averments in the private complaint, coupled with the sworn statement of defacto complainant, recorded by the learned Magistrate make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged. This is 13 a premature stage and this Court would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry whether the words spoken by the petitioners, are made with good faith or not. Intention is the essential ingredient of the statements. Whether the petitioners had a good faith or not, has to be established after a full-fledged trial. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 04.08.2022 DRK 14 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7877 of 2019 04.08.2022 DRK