Nomula Mamatha & Anr. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.SR.No.1886 of 2026, on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

Heard Mr.Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint before the learned trial Court, invoking the provisions of Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, only on the ground that Respondent No.2 was acquitted in C.C.No.2728 of 2018 on the file of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge and VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for the offences under Sections 341, 354 and 509 of the IPC on 28.04.2023. Mere acquittal of Respondent No.2 for the said offences in C.C.No.2728 of 2018 does not entitle him to file the present complaint alleging defamation, and the same is a clear abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the learned trial Court, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, straightaway issued summons to them on 24.07.2026, which is contrary to law.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the learned trial Court issued summons to the petitioners to put forth their grievances. The learned trial Court has neither taken cognizance of the offence nor issued summons to the petitioners after taking cognizance. The learned trial Court rightly issued notice to the petitioners to put forth their grievances, which are available to them; however, instead of availing the said opportunity, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present criminal petition. He fairly submits that, though the summons was issued by the learned trial Court under Section 61 of the Cr.P.C., the said summons may be treated as an intimation to the petitioners.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the learned trial Court on 25.04.2026, invoking the provisions of Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. Basing on the said complaint, the learned Magistrate, on 24.07.2026, issued summons under Section 61 of the Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, directing them to appear before the learned trial Court on 29.07.2026.

It is relevant to mention that the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

It is also relevant to mention that Respondent No.2 filed the complaint against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 354 and 509 of the IPC. The learned trial Court ought to have taken cognizance of the said complaint. However, it is not in dispute that, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned trial Court has not taken cognizance in the present case. The summons issued by the learned trial Court also reveals that the same was issued to the proposed accused. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned summons issued by the learned trial Court shall be treated as an intimation to the petitioners, and the petitioners are entitled to put forth their grievances by raising all the pleas available to them before the learned trial Court.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.