APHC010124652019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 467/2019 Between: 1. KOREMERLA RAVINDRA, D.NO. 26/3/1025, SAI NAGAR BANK COLONY, MALLITHORA B.V.NAGAR, NELLORE ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATHI 2. KORIMERLA TARA PRIYA, R/O. D.NO. 8-313-3RD LINE, NIRMAL NAGAR, ONGOLE TOWN PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to call for the records from the lower court and set a side the judgment and order passed on 18-03-2019 in CF 6786/2018 on the file of the V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Nellore Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.467 f 2019 Dated 22.07.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 18.03.2019 passed in C.F.No.6786 of 2018 by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, dismissing the complaint filed under Section 190 Cr.P.C. seeking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevit, ‘the I.P.C’). 2. Mr. K.M. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the representation submitted by Respondent No.2 to the Andhra Pradesh Gramina Bank contained defamatory allegations against the Petitioner, thereby causing injury to his reputation. He, therefore, contends that the dismissal of the complaint is unsustainable. 3. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Ms. P. Satya Haritha, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submit that, even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute the offence of defamation. It is contended that the learned Trial Court, upon assigning cogent reasons, rightly dismissed the complaint, as the averments therein do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Sections 499 and 500 of ‘the I.P.C’. They accordingly pray for dismissal of the revision. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.467 f 2019 Dated 22.07.2026 4. This Court has carefully perused the complaint as well as the impugned order. The complaint filed under Section 190 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ alleges that Respondent No.2, who is the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner, addressed a representation to the Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh Gramina Bank, Nellore, stating that the Petitioner and his family members were involved in certain criminal cases. According to the Petitioner, the said representation was intended to lower his reputation and that of his family members. 5. The material on record discloses that criminal cases in Crime Nos.120 of 2018, 149 of 2018 and 178 of 2016 were, in fact, pending between the parties. Even before this Court, neither the learned counsel for the Petitioner nor the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 could state whether those criminal cases have since been concluded. The learned Trial Court rightly observed that, as on the date of passing the impugned order, the said criminal cases were admittedly pending before the competent Courts. 6. The learned Trial Court further found that the representation submitted by Respondent No.2 merely referred to the pendency of criminal cases and did not contain any false imputation affecting the reputation of the Petitioner. The factum of pendency of criminal cases is a matter of public record. The Petitioner also failed to place any material to prima facie establish that the representation was made with malicious intention or that it lowered his reputation in the estimation of others. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.467 f 2019 Dated 22.07.2026 7. In this regard it is apposite to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court that an accusation or complaint made in good faith to a superior or competent authority is protected under the Eighth Exception to Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C’. The Court observed that a report made to the superior officer regarding the alleged misconduct of a person, when made in good faith, does not constitute defamation and is protected by the statutory exception. It is held paragraph No.7, as under: 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 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 1 (1999) 3 SCC 134 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.467 f 2019 Dated 22.07.2026 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. 8. In Kishor Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the Eighth Exception to Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ protects an accusation made in good faith to a person having lawful authority over the person complained against. The Court held that such a complaint does not amount to defamation and, accordingly, quashed the criminal defamation proceedings. It is held at paragraph No.16, as under: 16. 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. Even otherwise by perusing the allegations made in the complaint, we are satisfied that no case for defamation has been made out. 9. In Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GmbH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, even at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is competent to examine whether any of the exceptions to Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are prima facie attracted. The Court 2 2023 INSC 675 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.467 f 2019 Dated 22.07.2026 observed that where the allegations in the complaint itself disclose that the accused is entitled to the protection of a statutory exception, continuation of criminal defamation proceedings would be unwarranted. It is held at paragraph Nos.62 and 64, as under: 62. In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage the Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material (obtained through the process referred to in Section 200/Section 202) as to whether “sufficient ground for proceeding” exists as distinguished from “sufficient ground for conviction”, which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued. Although there is nothing in the law which in express terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to Section 499IPC is attracted, there is no bar either. After all, what is “excepted” cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision. We do realise that more often than not, it would be difficult to form an opinion that an Exception is attracted at that juncture because neither a complaint for defamation (which is not a regular phenomenon in the criminal courts) is likely to be drafted with contents, nor are statements likely to be made on oath and evidence adduced, giving an escape route to the accused at the threshold. However, we hasten to reiterate that it is not the law that the Magistrate is in any manner precluded from considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted in a given case; the Magistrate is under no fetter from so considering, more so because being someone who is legally trained, it is expected that while issuing process he would have a clear idea of what constitutes defamation. If, in the unlikely event, the contents of the complaint and the supporting statements on oath as well as reports of investigation/inquiry reveal a complete defence under any of the Exceptions to Section 499IPC, the Magistrate, upon due application of judicial mind, would be justified to dismiss the complaint on such ground and it would not amount to an act in excess of jurisdiction if such dismissal has the support of reasons. 64. Based on our understanding of the law and the reasoning that we have adopted, issue of process under Section 204 read with Section 200CrPC does not ipso facto stand vitiated for non-consideration of the Exceptions to Section 499IPC unless, of course, before the High Court it is convincingly demonstrated that even on the basis of the complaint and the materials that the Magistrate had before him and without there being anything more, the facts alleged do not prima facie make out the offence of defamation and that consequently, the proceedings need to be closed. 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.467 f 2019 Dated 22.07.2026 10. In the present case, the representation was addressed to the Regional Manager of the Bank regarding the pendency of criminal cases against the Petitioner and his family members. Such a representation, based on existing facts and addressed to a competent authority, cannot, by itself, be treated as constituting the offence of defamation. The learned Trial Court rightly concluded that no prima facie case under Sections 499 and 500 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was made out. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date:22.07.2026 KMS 8 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.467 f 2019 Dated 22.07.2026 88 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 467/2019 Date: 22.07.2026 KMS