1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7472 of 2023 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, registered for the offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1. Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint under Section 190(1) and (a) of Cr.P.C. read with 200 of Cr.P.C., on 09.05.2023 before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioner for the offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, stating that respondent No.1 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running a Lounge under the name and style of ‘LE VANTAGE’ in a rental premises bearing Municipal No.8-2-293/82/A/197, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the subject property’). The firm has also registered its trademark namely ‘Le Vantage Café Bar’ with the Government of India, dated 28.06.2018 and 29.11.2019 and the Registrar of Trademarks issued the certificates of registration under Form RG-2, dated 21.12.2018 and 29.11.2019.

               2.2. It is further stated that the petitioner and his wife are owners of the land admeasuring 1672 sq. yards situated in Plot No.197 and 197/A, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the same in the year 2004. Respondent No.1 approached the petitioner in the year 2016 and let out the above said premises on lease and executed a registered rental agreement bearing document No.6316 of 2016 dated 03.12.2016 for a period of three years commencing from 03.12.2016 to 02.11.2019.

               2.3. When the petitioner and his son came to the subject property on 23.09.2019 along with antisocial elements and threatened respondent No.1 and his wife to vacate the premises, respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.2225 of 2019 before the VII Junior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 24.09.2019,seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property and the trial Court, by order dated 11.11.2019, granted an ad interim injunction in I.A.No.513 of 2019 and the said injunction order is in force.

               2.4. On 23.07.2020, the petitioner along with his wife filed a suit in O.S.NO.195 of 2020 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to vacate the subject property and deliver vacant physical possession and also recovery of arrears of rent with interest @ 18 % per annum. The petitioner stated that he had received cheques towards rent from respondent No.1, but he had not encashed the said cheques. In the said suit, the petitioner and his wife also filed I.A.No.148 of 2022 seeking permission to deposit a sum of Rs.2,31,916/- towards arrears of rent. It is also stated that respondent No.1 had earlier filed a suit in O.S.NO.1801 of 2019 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and his wife seeking specific performance of the registered lease deed titled as a rental agreement dated 03.12.2016 and for a direction to them to execute and register a fresh lease deed and the said suit is also pending.

               2.5. He further stated that the petitioner filed W.P.No.19115 of 2020 before this Court challenging the renewal of the bar license issued in favour of respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition namely W.P.No.37762 of 2022 questioning the action of the District Prohibition and Excise Officer and others in receiving the application of respondent No.1 for renewal of 2B bar license and sought a direction not to renew the said licence for the year 2022- 2023. In the said writ petition, this Court granted by order dated 28.09.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 directed the District Prohibition and Excise Officer to consider the application submitted by respondent No.1 for renewal of 2B bar license strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, ‘the Rules’). He further stated that the petitioner also filed W.P.No.17651 of 2022 before this Court seeking a direction to the GHMC authorities not to renew the trade licence in favour of respondent No.1.

               2.6. Respondent No.1 further stated that on 30.10.2022, the petitioner unlawfully entered upon the subject property, namely, Le Vantage Café and Bar run by respondent No.1 and his wife, along with several news reporters and camera men, into the private parking area of the café with an intention to defame respondent No.1 and his wife and the petitioner made defamatory statements against respondent No.1 and his wife, which were broadcast on news channels, published in newspapers and circulated on YouTube channels. It was also stated that the confrontation with respondent No.1 and its partners was telecast on the Tolivelugu TV YouTube channel. In the said complaint, in paragraph No.24, respondent No.1 mentioned the defamatory statements made by the petitioner.

               2.7. In the said complaint, respondent No.1 averred that he and his wife had taken the premises of the petitioner on lease through a rental agreement dated 03.12.2016 and had obtained necessary permissions from the competent authority to run a cafe and bar in the said premises. The competent authority granted the required permissions and issued a licence for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor/Foreign Liquor by Bar for consumption on the premises on 26.03.2016 after following the due procedure. He also stated that the GHMC authorities had also granted a trade licence in his favour on 19.04.2017 and accordingly, respondent No.1 has been running the café and bar in the name Le Vantage Cafe Bar and the said licensing authority has been renewing the licence from time to time upon receipt of requisite licence fee and respondent No.1 has been paying rent regularly.

               2.8. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements of respondent No.1 and other witnesses, and upon due perusal of the complaint, sworn statements of the witnesses and data contained in a pen drive, took cognizance of the offence under Section 499 of the IPC and issued summons to the petitioner, by its order dated 20.09.2023.

               2.9. According to the parties, the evidence of respondent No.1 is commenced. At that juncture, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7472 of 2023.

3. Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Darmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

               4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offence under Section 499 of the IPC are not attracted. The petitioner has not made any defamatory words and statements against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed the private complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioner and to squat on the property illegally, though the lease agreement was expired long back and to settle the civil disputes pending between them before the competent civil Court by giving a criminal colour.

               4.2. He further submitted that the competent authority, by order dated 19.10.2024, rejected the application submitted by respondent No.1 for renewal of the 2B bar license. Challenging the said order, respondent No.1 had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.29567 of 2024 and also filed another W.P.No.28529 of 2024 questioning the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 therein in interfering with the business and sealing the bar counter, fridge, liquor store, and liquor refrigerator without any proceedings, as being illegal. The said two writ petitions were clubbed together and this Court by way of a common order dated 30.12.2024 dismissed both the writ petitions, holding that the petitioner firm did not have a valid lease deed and that the rejection order passed by the competent authority was valid. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 filed writ appeals vide W.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2025 and the Division Bench of this Court, by a common judgment dated 05.02.2025, dismissed the said writ appeals. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos.7711-7712 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said appeals were also dismissed on 28.10.2025. In spite of the same, respondent No.1 with an intention to continue in the premises illegally without any manner of right and to settle the pending civil disputes filed the present complaint by giving it a criminal colour.

               4.3. He further submitted that the alleged allegations mentioned in the complaint do not fall within the ambit of defamation and essential ingredients are not made out to attract the offence under Section 499 IPC and to attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC, the essential ingredients i.e., (i) there must be an imputation made by the petitioner (ii) such imputation must have been made by words (spoken or written) signs or visible representations (iii) such imputation must concern a specific person or a definable class of persons; and (iv) the imputation must have been made or published with the intention to harm, or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm, the reputation of such person must be satisfied and the said ingredients are absent in the complaint lodged by respondent No.1.

               4.4. He further submitted that even if the contents of the complaint are taken to be consider as true, without admitting the same, the imputations allegedly made by the petitioner falls with the Exceptions (i), (iv) and (ix) of Section 499 of IPC. The learned trial Court, without properly verifying the contents of the complaint, documents and the proceedings pending between the parties before the competent civil Court, took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner, which is contrary to law. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1:

               5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that on 30.10.2022 he entered the premises i.e., Le Vantage Café and Bar, which was being run by respondent No.1 and his wife, along with several news reporters and camera men, and made defamatory words and statements against respondent No.1 and his wife. The said defamatory words and statements were covered by news channels, newspapers and YouTube channels. The defamatory material was also published in ToliVelugu TV YouTube channel along with its Telugu and English scribes. The defamatory imputations have been extracted in paragraph No.24 of the complaint. Along with the complaint, respondent No.1 filed a pen drive before the trial Court. He further submitted that the learned trial Court, after recording the statements of respondent No.1 and his wife, took cognizance and issued summons. He further submitted that as on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 30.10.2022, the licence and authorization issued by the competent authorities were subsisting and respondent No.1 was running the café and bar with proper authorization. The words and defamatory imputations used by the petitioner attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 499 of the IPC.

               5.2. The pendency of the civil suits, namely O.S.No.2225 of 2019 filed by respondent No.1 for grant of perpetual injunction, O.S.No.1801 of 2019 seeking specific performance of registered lease deed for execution of a fresh lease deed, and O.S.No.195 of 2025 filed by the petitioner and his wife seeking recovery of possession are nothing to do with the present complaint. The allegations made in the complaint pertain to the year 2022 and the petitioner made defamatory statements against respondent No.1 and his wife and other government officials.

               5.3. He further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.7472 of 2023 based on subsequent events, such as rejection of renewal of the 2B bar licence on 19.10.2024 and dismissal of W.P.Nos.28529, 29567 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024, dismissal of W.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2025 dated 05.02.2025, and dismissal of S.L.A. (C) Nos.7711-7712 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025. The said proceedings are subsequent to the alleged offence, which took place on 30.10.2022, especially when there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and substantial material filed along with complaint before the trial Court to prove that the petitioner has committed the offence. The grounds which were raised in the criminal petition are disputed facts, which cannot be adjudicated in the present criminal petition exercising the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS and, therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

               5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.A. Rumugam v. Kittu alias Krishnamoorthy ((2009) 1 SCC 101).

6. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:

               6.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, after recording the statements of respondent No.1 and his wife, and upon perusal of the contents of the complaint, sworn statements of the witnesses, and the data contained in the pen drive, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 499 of the IPC, punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and accordingly, took cognizance of the said offence and issued summons. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage.

Analysis :

7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and his wife are owners of a barren land admeasuring 1672 sq. yards in plot Nos.197 and 197/A, situated at Road No.13, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Even according to the parties, the petitioner and his wife executed a registered lease agreement in favour of respondent No.1 through a rental agreement bearing No.6316 of 2015 on 03.12.2016. The said rental agreement commenced from 03.12.2016 and expired on 02.11.2019. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 has been running a café and bar in the name of ‘Le Vantage’ and that the competent authority, namely the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad, granted a license for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor/Foreign Liquor on 26.03.2016. The GHMC authorities also granted a trade licence on 19.04.2017 and the said licence was renewed from time to time. After expiry of the lease period, when the petitioner demanded that respondent No.1 vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of the subject property, respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.2225 of 2019 before the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his henchmen from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the said suit, respondent No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.513 of 2019 seeking ad interim injunction and the trial Court granted interim injunction on 11.11.2019.

8. The record further reveals that the petitioner and his wife filed O.S.No.195 of 2020 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to vacate the subject property, deliver vacant possession and pay arrears of rent along with interest @ 18 % per annum. It also reveals from the record that respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.1801 of 2019 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance of the registered lease deed titled as rental agreement dated 03.12.2016 and for a direction to execute a fresh lease deed. Even according to the parties, the above three suits are pending before the competent civil Courts.

9. The record further reveals that the petitioner submitted representation before the Excise Department and GHMC authorities seeking not to renew the bar licence and trade licence in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed W.P.Nos.28529 and 29567 of 2024 questioning the interference by the authorities therein in the subject property and also questioning the rejection order of renewal of the 2B licence, respectively. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by way of a common order dated 13.12.2024, dismissed both the writ petitions holding that respondent No.1 firm did not have a valid lease and rejected the contention of deemed renewal under Rule 9A of the Rules. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2024 dated 05.02.2025 and also the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the said Special Leave Appeals on 28.10.2025.

10. The core contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner did not use any defamatory words against respondent No.1 and his wife and that the alleged defamatory statements do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Sections 499 of the IPC is concerned, a perusal of the complaint, respondent No.1 has averred in the complaint regarding the use of defamatory words/statements against him, his wife, and other government Excise and GHMC officials, especially in paragraph No.24 of the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner was entered into the premises along with several news reporters and camera men, in to the private parking area of the café and the petitioner made defamatory words/statements against respondent No.1 and his wife in front of news reporters, which were broadcast on news channels, published in newspapers and circulated on YouTube channels and that the confrontation with respondent No.1 and its partners was telecast on the Tolivelugu TV YouTube channel.

11. The record discloses that the learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the contents of the complaint, sworn statement of respondent No.1 and other witnesses and data in pen drive, held that it is apparent that it is the case of the complainant that the accused made defamatory statements against them stating that the complainant is illegally selling liquor without licence, selling cheap liquor, giving bribes to excise officials and obtaining illegal trade licence and they are not paying huge crores of amount towards rent to the accused and thereby the reputation of complainant in the society is damaged. The learned Magistrate while recording satisfaction and by giving reasons held that a prima facie case under Section 499 of the IPC was made out against the petitioner and accordingly took cognizance. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court took cognizance without proper verification of the complaint, documents, material, and other pending proceedings is not tenable in law.

12. It is relevant to mention that to constitute the offence of defamation, there has to be imputation and it must have made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence. The complainant has to show that the accused had intended or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant. In the case on hand, respondent No.1 on his complaint specifically mentioned that the petitioner has made defamatory statements against him and his wife and other government officials that they are illegally selling liquor without licence, selling cheap liquor, giving huge bribes to the Excise Officials, obtained illegal trade licence, doing dhandha, not paying Crores of rent to the petitioner and top level officials have colluded with respondent No.1 and taking bribes and the said allegations, on the face of the record, do not automatically fall within the statutory Exceptions (i), (iv) and (ix) to Section 499 of the IPC, especially the burden of proving such exceptions lies on the accused, and the same must be established during the course of the trial before the trial Court.

13. The record further reveals that respondent No.1 lodged a private complaint for the offence took place on 30.12.2022 and the learned Magistrate, after following the due procedure took cognizance for the offence under Section 499 of the IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed W.P.Nos.29567 and 28529 of 2024 questioning the rejection of renewal of 2B licence and the interference of the respondent authorities therein with the business of respondent No.1 and this Court, by way of a common order, both the writ petitions were dismissed on 13.12.2024 and the said order was confirmed in W.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2024 dated 05.02.2025 and further affirmed in S.L.A. (C) Nos.7711-7712 of 2025 by order dated 28.10.2025. Based on the above said subsequent proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings, especially when there are specific allegations made in the complaint that the petitioner made defamatory words/statements against respondent No.1, his wife and other Government officials, which were telecast on YouTube channels. Whether the allegations made in the complaint are true or not cannot be adjudicated by this Court exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS and the same has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. Even according to the parties, the trial has already commenced.

14. It is relevant to mentioned that in Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visakha Industries ((2020) 4 SCC 162), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that publication of defamatory material on digital platforms attracts liability under Sections 499–500 IPC when the imputation is communicated to others and is capable of injuring the reputation of the aggrieved person. The Court clarified that the mode of dissemination whether physical or electronic is immaterial, and once a person intentionally publishes reputation-harming content, criminal defamation stands prima facie established.

15. In M.A. Rumugam supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the allegations made in the complaint makes out a case for proceeding against the appellant under Section 500 of the IPC as thereby imputation concerning the respondent had been made intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm his reputation.

16. It is relevant to mention that in Pramod Shivashankar v. Vaishnavi (2025 SCC OnLine Kar 20758), the Karnataka High Court reiterated that abusive, derogatory, or false statements made on social media or shared through online accounts accessible to others constitute “publication” under Section 499 IPC. The Court observed that digital circulation of defamatory content whether by words, insinuation, or portrayal amounts to defamation if it tends to lower the reputation of the person concerned in the eyes of the public.

17. It is also relevant to mention that in Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ((2019) 14 SCC 350), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on hand does not fall under the ambit of the rarest of rare case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7472 of 2023.

18. For the foregoing reasons and precedent judgments, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings exercising the inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 68 years, his presence in C.C. No.7472 of 2023 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific dates so fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.