1 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS AT MEDCHAL, MEDCHAL – MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT
Present: Smt. Paladugula Alekhya VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, at Medchal
Medchal-Malkajgiri District
Dated this the 30 th day of October, 2025
C.C. No. 490 of 2017
Between:
Sri. Hari Krishna Dasa @ A.Hari Krishna S/o. Late A.Narsaiah, Aged about 41 years R/o. H.No.5-224, SR Naik Nagar, IDA Jeedimetla Quthbullapur, R.R.District Telangana. ….Complainant
AND
A1. Mr. Gokul Chandra Dasa, S/o.Not Known Aged about 44 years President ISKCON-Salem Branch, Karuppur, Salem- 636012, Tamilnadu
A2. Gaura Bhagavan Dasa alias Rajiv Panchal, S/o. Not known, Aged about 40 years, Community Member of Salem Congregation Vrindavana Dham Colony, Mettupati Road, Karuppur, Salem-636012, Tamilnadu
...Accused Nos. 1 and 2
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.R.Subramaniam, Learned Counsel for the Complainant and Sri.A.M.Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused and upon perusal of the entire material on record, on hearing the argument of both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
2 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
J U D G M E N T
This Private complaint under Section 200 and Section 190 (I) (a) Cr.P.C is filed by the Complainant against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 504 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. The brief and concise averments of the Private complainant are that :
(a)The complainant is a software engineer by profession and he was working for a company CA Technologies, Gachibowli, Hyderabad and drawing a handsome salary from the said company. But he resigned from his lucrative job to devote himself to spiritual and preaching work in ISKCON, very particularly about Bhagavat Gita and Bhagavatam. Earlier he married to one Sridevi and have two children. He gained respect and recognition among devotees, political leaders and public for his service.
(b)The complainant further submits that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 out of jealousy towards the complainant’s popularity in the social circle of ISKCON, made false scandalous, and defamatory statement accusing him of being very closely with a woman devotee of ISKCON. The complainant stated that his interactions with devotees, regardless of gender, were purely spiritual and without any evil intention.
(c)The complainant further submits that the wild allegations tarnished his reputation within ISKCON and society, caused mental agony to both him and his wife and even leading to their isolation as other devotees and their children 3 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
were instructed not to speak with them. The complainant was also threatened with physical harm if he entered the temple premises. The complainant’s children suffered severe mental trauma because of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for their unlawful acts and gross child abuse. The allegations made against the complainant are unreasonable, unsustainable and are highly deplorable and should be deprecated by all means. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 made such allegations against the complainant who left his lucrative job to live a life based on the teaching of Bhagavat Gita and Bhagavatam, without any pros and cons, liable for prosecution for criminal defamation.
(d) The complainant sent a legal notice dated 20-10-2016 demanding an apology and Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages within seven days, but the accused
Nos. 1 and 2 received legal notice on 24-10-2016 but failed to respond.
Therefore, the complainant filed criminal complaint, seeking prosecution of the accused under Sections 499, 500 and 504 of IPC.
3.Basing on the said private complaint, after careful perusal of the material on record along with Sworn statement of the complainant and after hearing the complainant, a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons.
Accordingly, this court has taken cognizance against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC.
4.The case was taken cognizance against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and on 4 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them under
Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5.Thereafter accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
for the offence under Sections 499, 500, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and the contents of the case were read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.The complainant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked certain documents as Exhibits P1 to 7 in support of his complaint. Ex.P1 is mail sent by complainant to accused No.1 dated 06-10-2016, Ex.P2 is reply mail sent by accused No.1 dated 07-10-2016, Ex.P3 is the reply mail sent by complainant to accused No.1 dated 07-10-2016, Ex.P4 is proposed mediation settlement sent through mail by NJ Sadashivam dated 14-10-2017, Ex.P5 are the discussions happened through mail on 20-10-2016 and other dates, Ex.P6 is legal notice
dated 20-10-2016 with two acknowledgment cards, Ex.P7 is the order of
Hon’ble High court dated 21-12-2017 in Crl.Petition No. 8547/2017.
7.During his cross examination, Exs. D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of the accused. Ex.D1 is a complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act by the complainant against one Smt. Sarita Naidu Peddagoppa vide STC No.976 of 2021 on the file of XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. Ex.D2 is Certified copy of private complaint filed by Saritha against the complainant vide CC No.
4408/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 375, 376-C, 420, 354 and 5 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
509 of IPC on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate court, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.
8.After closure of complainant evidence, the accused were examined
U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appearing against them in the version of complainant and they reported no defence evidence. No witnesses are examined on behalf of the accused Nos. 1 and 2.
9.Heard arguments of both sides. Written arguments filed by the Learned
Counsel for Complainant and Accused and also reply arguments by Complainant.
Perused the record.
10.Now the point for determination is :
Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of accused persons for
the offence under Sections 499, 500, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable
doubt?.
P O I N T :
11.The present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging that the accused persons made an allegation against the complainant that he had been involved very closely with one woman who is also devotee at ISKCON and that ever since such allegation came into existence, complainant is suffering from severe mental agony and that such allegations are spoiling the reputation of the complainant and his entire family image is at stake. And that the accused persons had committed offence under section 499, 500 and 504 of IPC. It is 6 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
further submitted that the said offence took place within the police station limits of IDA Jeedimetla PS.
12.it is further the case of the complainant that in connection with the said allegation, the complainant was constrained to address an email letter dated 06.10.2016 at 15.14 hours, asking for clarification and basis for making such irresponsible statement and that he got a reply by email dated 7.10.2016 at 10:32 hours from the accused no.1 stating that no one ever accused him of having affair with particular Mataji, and he has said the same statement in front of Guru Maharaj and all the devotees. That they are all complaining that he has become too close to that Mataji in personal dealings and that as Guru Maharaj said it is not acceptable that a married man develop social relationship with a female outside of his family circle, even if it is supposed to be in the name of
Krsna consciousness and that they are speaking about social relationship and not about affair.
13.The complainant further submitted that accused no.1 tried to distinguish between social relationship and affair, and stated that complainant should restrain himself from talking or going to particular family for any kind of things.
14.It is further submitted that it is unbecoming on the part of accused no.1 and 2 to make such a dirty allegations and remarks without any iota of truth, and that the complainant was restrained from entering the temple and his family and children were isolated by asking other devotees and children not to speak 7 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
to them and thereby the basic fundamental right of a citizen is breached by accused no.1’s unlawful act and that the complainant’s child had to suffer severe mental trauma because of accused no.1 and 2 for their unlawful acts and gross child abuse.
15.It is further submitted that the accused number no.1, along with one Mr
Venkatesh, alias Vrindavan threatened the complainant of physical damage and injury to body if complainant dare to enter the Vrindavan Dham colony and the allegations made against the complainant is unreasonable and unsustainable viewed from any angle.
In re: Territorial Jurisdiction of this Court to decide the matter
16.Before discussing the evidence and facts of the case in detail, it is necessary to discuss on the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the matter. The present case involves two instances of alleged defamation mentioned below:
a)Firstly, at Salem where the accused no.1 and 2 allegedly propagated that the complainant is having an affair with a lady devotee.
b)Secondly, through Ex.P2/mail where the accused no.1 has categorically stated that the complainant is moving closely and maintaining a social relationship with a lady devotee which is unacceptable.
8 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
17.One instance prior to the alleged defamation as admitted by the complainant took place in Hyderabad where the complainant received a leg massage from a lady devotee and subsequently he was asked to move to Salem from Hyderabad.
18.A question of territorial jurisdiction was raised before the Hon’ble High
Court in the quash petition filed by the accused persons. It was observed by the
Hon’ble High Court in its order under Ex. P7 that as one incident of getting a leg
massage took place in Hyderabad, this Court is conferred with jurisdiction to decide the matter with a caveat that such plea can be taken before this Court and this Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders if after recording of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it lacks jurisdiction.
19.However, the Learned Counsel for the accused did not take such plea either in his cross-examination or during arguments. The Learned Counsel for the accused has while taking a stand that there is no publication of defamation submitted that, there is no publication of defamatory statement as all the communication under Ex. P1 to P5 were made to personal email of the accused and complainant and it was the complainant who sent CC of mail to
Gurumaharaj. Whereas, the complainant has in his written arguments has contended that the defamatory statement was passed by accused persons when in Salem.
20.On going through the entire evidence on record, the primary allegation of the complainant is that the accused no.1 and 2 allegedly propagated that the 9 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
complainant is having an affair with a lady devotee in Salem resulting in mental agony and defamation. It is also his case that, subsequent to the direction of not to attend ISKCON temple Salem by the President of the Temple/GuruMaharaj, the complainant sent an e-mail vide Ex. P1 questioning the acts of the accused no.1 and GuruMaharaj and sought for evidence of alleged affair. In response vide Ex. P2, accused no.1 has denied propagating such an imputation but categorically stated that, he is in a social relationship with a lady devotee which is unacceptable. Being aggrieved by such a statement passed by accused no.1, the complainant sought for explanation and proof vide Ex.P3/e-mail. There is no categorical mention that the exchange of mails took place in Salem. Ex. P5 which are a series of mails shows that the complainant contacted an advocate and on his advise has got drafted a compromise document and clearly in the email dated October 18th 2016, the complainant has categorically mentioned that he was in Hyderabad. Moreover, in his complaint, the complainant has categorically mentioned that the offence took place within the police station limits of IDA
Jeedimetla PS and that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter and take cognizance of the offence.
21.Thus, in the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that, the present case involves two instances of alleged defamation as mentioned earlier, one which took place in Salem and another when the complainant was in Hyderabad through mails. The first cause of action arose in
Salem and upon the repetition of alleged defamatory statement in the mail, the 10 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
cause of action arose again in Hyderabad, being the place of residence of the
Complainant. This view is further fortified by the specific averment of the complainant in his complaint that complainant had to leave the place as accused no.1 along with one Mr. Venkatesh @ Vrindavana Nath threatened of physical damage and injury to body if he dare to enter Vrindavana Dham colony.
Therefore, for the reasons aforementioned, I am of the opinion that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter.
22.The following are the Ingredients to constitute an offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC:
a) There has to be an imputation which is a statement or accusation made about a person,
b) Such imputation has to be communicated to a person other
than the aggrieved or the person to whom it refers to,
c) The person making the imputation must have intended to harm the reputation, or known or had reason to believe that it would cause harm,
d) Such an imputation must result in harm to the person's reputation, and
e) Such imputation must not fall under one of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC.
23.The first and foremost requirement to constitute an offence of
Defamation is that a person must have made an imputation or accusation about another person with either an intention, knowledge, or reason to believe that such an imputation will harm the reputation of the person against whom such an 11 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
imputation is made. This imputation could be either by words, signs or visible representations and they could either be made or published. The accused no.1 vide Ex. P2 in his reply to Ex.P1 denied having alleged or propagated that the complainant was having an affair with a lady devotee or that he is a womanizer.
But stated that the complainant is moving too closely with a devotee and involving in personal activities and that the same is socially unacceptable. The complainant though alleged that accusation of having an affair was propagated in Salem by the accused persons, he has not adduced any supporting evidence of it and cannot be believed solely on the self serving statement of the complainant. Thus, now it falls upon this Court to decide whether the above statement made by the accused no.1 in his reply under Ex.P2 constitutes a defamatory statement.
24.In the written arguments filed by the Learned Counsel for the accused, it is categorically mentioned that the Mediation efforts by senior ISKCON devotees confirmed that no wrong doing or immoral conduct occurred. In Ex. P1, the complainant, has addressed a mail to accused no.1 stating that he accept his authority to not want him to continue in Salem community, and that when he was asked by Guru Maharaj to move with his family to Salem one and half years ago, he had accepted it as a mercy for purification of his heart and that he was asked to move from Hyderabad on allegation that he had engaged a Mataji to massage his feet when he had severe pain in his feet and that he never disagreed to the fact that she massaged his feet, but he felt not understood 12 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
when allegations of misbehavior were against him for this fact and that he accepted and acceded to the desire of the devotee and that in Salem, he is being labeled as a womanizer by Guru Gaurav Bhagwan for having an affair with Nama
Sankeerthana Mataji and GuruMaharaj is supporting him in those allegations.
And that he feel pained for being misunderstood without getting an reasonable opportunity to ever refute such allegations and that he feels helpless and victimized and requested to provide any evidence that he may have against him and that Gaurav Bhagwan Prabhu give an affidavit that he is having improper relationship with Nama Sankeertana Mataji.
25.Dictionary meaning and common parlance of having an affair would mean having a sexual or romantic relationship with another outside marriage. In the reply mail of accused no.1 to PW1/complainant, the accused no.1 has categorically stated that they are only speaking about social relationship and not affair and that PW1 was going to her house and closely involving with said
Mataji in personal dealings and that all of them tried to explain to him that it is socially unacceptable and that the complainant went on fighting with everyone and asked said Mataji to take photos around. It is pertinent to note that PW1 in his reply mail under Ex. P3 has not denied going to the house of said Mataji frequently and indirectly supported his acts by stating that his wife and children are close to said Mataji and has also not denied that the accused no.1 tried to explain that it was socially unacceptable and that PW1 asked Mataji to take photos around. It is also pertinent to note that in Ex. P3, PW1 has not denied the 13 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
stand of Guru Maharaj that a man shall not develop a social relationship with a female outside of family circle, even if it is supposed to be in the name of Krsna consciousness. It is not the case of the complainant that Maharaj has never made such statement or has never guided the devotees in that regard.
26.Having categorically denied that an accusation of having an affair and being a womanizer is made by the accused persons, the only question remains is to discuss what offended the complainant. In his complaint, PW1 has categorically stated that the accused no.1 tried to distinguish between social relationship and affair. The complainant has not specifically alleged that by social relationship which is unacceptable, the accused mean having an affair. A social relationship includes in its ambit all sorts of interactions and interpersonal relations one has with others be it friends, family or acquaintances and the degree of closeness varies with the sort of relation maintained. Therefore, it does not directly infer of an affair or sexual relationship. In his complaint, he stated that as per the accused, the complainant should refrain himself from talking or going to particular family for any kind of things. Thus, it is evident that the accused persons have asked the complainant not to socialize excessively with female devotees even if it is for the sake of propagating Krsna consciousness as guided by Guru Maharaj which he did not deny in his reply mail under Ex. P3.
27.Furthermore, the Learned Counsel for the accused contended that accused no.1 had lawful authority over the complainant in matters of spiritual 14 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
and organizational discipline and that all actions taken were within the scope of authority. PW1 during his cross-examination has stated that accused no.1 is the
President of ISKCON Temple at Salem and that he is his reporting authority and accused no.1 used to give him instructions as to what to do and what not to do.
Accused has taken the defence that the case falls under Exception 7 to Section 499 of IPC where any censure passed by a lawful authority in good faith is not defamation. It is not denied by the complainant that accused no.1 has prior to asking the complainant not to enter the temple, has informed him that his actions would lead to misunderstandings amongst devotees but the complainant fought with them. Having failed to obey, such action was taken against the complainant however later they intended to settle the dispute and only therefore, the senior members of the Temple at Salem proposed a mediation under Ex. P4. Complainant has categorically admitted in Ex. P1 that he got a leg massage from a lady devotee and he went to Salem for purification of his heart which explains the nature and kind of discipline that is expected of its preachers and devotees in the said Community. It is not his case that he has never spoke to said lady devotee. Moreover, in Ex. P2, the accused no.1 has categorically mentioned that the colony people feel that he is involving closely with said devotee in personal dealings. From such a statement, it could not be inferred that, the accused person alleged him of having an affair when it was categorically denied and no supporting evidence is adduced. Moreover, it is categorically stated that though he was warned, the complainant fought with everyone and asked the said devotee to take photos around causing harassment 15 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
to other devotees which he later admitted to be his mistake. Thus, it appears that, the complainant is very well aware of the situation around him but only got aggrieved when he was asked not to enter the temple.
28.Though, this Court is of the view that though such a decision by the
Temple authority is not welcoming and interferes with the fundamental right of movement of the complainant, it cannot be said that such a statement is defamatory in nature lowering the image of the complainant in the eyes of others. The accused themselves took a plea that no wrongdoing or immoral conduct took place but it is their case that, the complainant has exaggerated the statement of the accused. It is not complainant’s case that the accused persons used to reside in the same colony as the complainant in Salem and that the accused themselves has made an observation that the complainant was frequently visiting the house of the lady devotee. In. Ex. P2, accused no.1 has categorically stated that the colony people also feel that the complainant is moving closely. This was not denied by the complainant in his reply under Ex. P3.
Thus, the lens of perception of the people appears to be narrow and such perception is chosen to avoid misunderstandings amongst devotees as the lady devotee is living alone without a husband and not cause any sort of hindrance in their spiritual path including the complainant’s.
29.When complainant was asked to move to Salem from hyderabad, for getting a leg massage with a lady devotee, the complainant accepted the decision for purification of his heart as stated by him in Ex. P1. This shows that, 16 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
the complainant is aware of the kind of social discipline that is expected of a devotee and preacher within the temple community and accepted it. However, censure by the accused no.1 to not move closely was not received by the complainant in a good sense and he retaliated by asking the said lady devotee/Mataji to take photos around resulting in causing annoyance to other devotees. This was not denied by the complainant in his reply under Ex.P3.
These aspects goes on to show that it is not a single movement that led to the decision of the accused to ask the complainant to not enter the temple premises but a series of events. The complainant was not going to the temple as an ordinary devotee but has involved himself in preaching activities at temple and selling books and agarbattis at temple. That being the case, asking not to enter the temple would mean not to continue with such activities in temple premises.
It is the complainant’s case that his reputation was damaged and his family was ostracized. However, he has not adduced evidence of his family member or independent witness in support of his claim. Therefore, this Court is of the view that statement of closely moving with another lady devotee is not defamatory in nature but is only guiding. Moreover, it appears that the complainant also does not feel that talking to lady devotees is wrong. As such, it cannot be treated as an accusation or imputation. The Complainant very much defended his association with the lady devotee by stating that his wife and children are close to Mataji’s family. No independent evidence is adduced to show that his family and children were ostracized and that too on the instructions of the accused no.1 and 2. It is incorrect and improper to read into one’s relationship 17 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
with another when it is not a publicized relationship. However, one cannot keep a check on the perception of others on one’s way of conducting any sort of social relationships. The complainant having accepted to be a part of community which is highly disciplined and focused on Krsna consciousness, ought to have understood what is expected of him rather than fighting the perceptions.
30.The complainant alleged that the accused persons are having malice against him seeing his growth and popularity amongst devotees and
GuruMaharaj. The complainant himself stated that he obtained Brahmana
Diksha in 2015 at Salem after the incident in Hyderabad in 2013. Thus, it appears that the complainant was not deprived of any opportunity to move forward in his spiritual path by the Temple authority.
31.The stand taken by the accused in the cross-examination of PW1 is that he moves closely with lady devotees. It was denied by the complainant who stated that, the accused persons made such propaganda. However, no evidence is adduced by the complainant that such propaganda was made by the accused and in Ex. P5 in the compromise draft proposed by the complainant on 16.10.2017, the complainant himself included the clause that that accused persons falsely accused him of having a socially unacceptable relationship based on hearsay. The accused no.1 categorically mentioned in Ex.P3 that the residents of the colony or the devotees residing in the colony are of such opinion. Therefore, the question of making such propaganda by the accused is negatived by his own statement in Ex.P5 mail. The Learned Counsel for the 18 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
accused has taken a stand that the statement made by accused no.1 under Ex.
P2 is not publicized but addressed to the complainant only. However, it is not denied by the accused that such statement was not made at all prior to Ex. P2 and admitted in Ex. P2 that they have earlier discussed the matter. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of the Learned Counsel for accused on this aspect.
However, as this Court is of the opinion that such a statement is not defamatory but is passed as clarification and not made with an intent to defame, no further discussion is necessary on the aspect of publication.
32.During his cross-examination, Ex. D1 which is complaint made by complainant alleging Cheque dishonour vide STC no. 976 of 2021 was marked.
As per it, the complainant herein claimed to have lent Rs. 20,00,000/- to a lady devotee/Saritha in the year 2020 and that cheque issued in discharge of liability was not honoured and eventually he filed a complaint in September 2021. Ex. D2 is the complaint lodged in 2020 by said Saritha accusing the complainant of sexually harassing her from the year 2018. Both the cases are pending adjudication. Only after Ex. D2/complaint is filed by said Saritha on 21.08.2021, the complainant herein filed a complaint under Ex. D1 that cheque dated 1.07.2021 was dishonoured on 25.08.2021. The complainant alleges that, such complaint was made at the instance of the accused. However, the complainant himself has stated in his complaint that the said Saritha developed good rapport with the complainant in the proximity of rendering of devotional services and then he extended hand loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- to her for purchasing a house.
19 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
These are the subsequent events which are brought to light by the accused during cross-examination of PW1. No where in the complaint under Ex. D1, the complainant herein has alleged that the said Saritha acted in connivance of the accused herein. Moreover, the complainant had a history of admittedly getting a leg massage from a devotee resulting in his transfer to Salem. That being the case, it is understandable of that the accused no.1 being the president of the temple to whom the complainant reports to censure him on his conduct and the same appears to be in good faith.
33.Having involved in a Spiritual path, this Court can estimate the level of sensitivity of the complainant towards any sort of accusation involving a woman.
However, on the other hand, it is also essential to consider the intention of the accused in making such a statement. Complainant alleged malice to the accused persons. However, in view of the status of the accused no.1, it cannot be said that such statement was made to defame the complainant but to guide him to avoid misunderstandings amongst devotees to which he overtly reacted to. The attempt of the accused no.1 in guiding the complainant appears to be to maintain social discipline amongst the devotees and involve themselves primarily on krsna conciousness.
34.What is socially unacceptable to one community does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world. In Ex. P1, PW1 has categorically mentioned that he has apologised for getting a leg massage from a female devotee and has accepted his shift from Hyderabad to Salem for purification of his heart. Thus, 20 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
from such experience, it is evident that the community expects more constrained behaviour from its devotees and preachers. Getting a leg massage from a person during ill health is not a deplorable act and does not necessitate serious action. However, PW1 accepted the same and shifted to Salem which shows that he has accepted the way of life which is expected of him. Moreover, the complainant has never stated that the accused no.1 has infact warned him not to move closely with said devotee. Furthermore, he stated that the accused persons did not come forward to compromise the matter. Ex.P4 proposed mediation settlement sent through mail by NJ Sadashivam dated 14.10.2017 shows that a mediation draft was prepared wherein it is mentioned that both parties would apologise to each other. Said Mataji was also made part to it.
However, in the series of mails under Ex.P5 dated 16.10.2017, in a draft compromise, it is evident that the complainant expected the accused persons to agree of falsely accusing him of having a socially unacceptable relationship based on hearsay and accused him of being a womanizer and accused the said
Mataji of being a women of questionable character and ostracizing his family and apologize for the same. Then the compromise did not take place as it is different from what was proposed under Ex. P4. Moreover, the accused persons are not party to the mails under Ex. P4 and P5. However, it cannot be said that they had no knowledge of the same as they failed to give reply to the legal notice and did not reply to Ex. P3/mail and has themselves stated that the
Mediation efforts have been made by Senior devotees of ISKCON. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused did not come forward to settle the matter. Thus, 21 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
the complainant has failed to establish that the accused had an intent to harm the reputation of complainant and that the accused had malice in passing such a statement. Furthermore, this Court is of the view that the statement made by the accused persons was made in good faith for protection of interest of public/devotees and it was made under the authority to guide the conduct of the complainant.
35.Moreover, no evidence is adduced to show that his children has suffered abuse in the hands of the accused persons. The Learned Counsel for the
Complainant has mentioned about Brahmana Diksha and what is expected of the devotee taking such Brahmana Diksha, which includes not earning money by any other employment. From Ex.D1, it is evident that the complainant is continuing his preaching activities in Hyderabad and claims to have lent a huge amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the accused therein/a lady devotee for building a house by arranging money. Moreover, the source of income as deposed in his cross-examination is by selling books and Agarbattis. Thus, this Court is of the view that he has not sustained any monetary loss for claiming compensation.
36.Moreover, to attract the offence under S. 504 IPC, the complainant has not adduced any evidence. He has not specifically stated that such statement was made to insult the complainant but as a clarification to the mail sent under
Ex. P1.
37. It is further submitted that the written arguments of the accused are defamatory in nature and adding fuel to the earlier statements. Often in cases 22 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
of defamation, it is upon the accused to explain the truth of the statement as it one of the defence available to them and has also to defend themselves that such statement was not made with an intent to defame but it falls under one of the exceptions to Section 499IPC. That being the case, it cannot be said that, the accused in the process of defending their actions in the Court of law are defaming the complainant.
38.In view of the above said discussion, this court is of the view that complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no iota of evidence against the accused.
39. In the result, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall 23 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. No orders as to the property as there is no property in this case.
Transcribed to my dictation by Stenographer typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of October 2025
VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS AT MEDCHAL
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR COMPLAINANT FOR ACCUSED
PW1: Hari Krishna Dasa @ A.HariKrishna Das - None -
FOR COMPLAINANT
Ex.P1 : Mail sent by complainant to accused No.1 dated 06-10-2016, Ex.P2 : Reply mail sent by accused No.1 dated 07-10-2016, Ex.P3 : Reply mail sent by complainant to accused No.1 dated 07-10-2016 Ex.P4 is proposed mediation settlement sent through mail by NJ Sadashivam
dated 14-10-2017,
Ex.P5 : Discussions happen through mail on 20-10-2016 and other dates. Ex.P6 : Legal otice dated 20-10-2016 with two acknowledgment cards, Ex.P7 : Order of Hon’ble High court dated 21-12-2017 in Crl.Petition No. 8547/2017.
FOR ACCUSED
Ex.D1 is a complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act by the complainant against one Smt. Sarita Naidu Peddagoppa vide CC No.976 of 2021 on the file of XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.
Ex.D2 is Certified copy of private complaint filed by Saritha against the complainant vide CC No. 4408/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 375, 376-C, 420, 354 and 509 of IPC on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate court, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.
24 Judgment in
CC. No. 490 of 2017
Material Objects Marked
- Nil -
VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS AT MEDCHAL