The Telangana High Court has quashed a defamation complaint holding that it was not for the company to file the complaint based on aspersions cast against its employees.

The remarks in question, the court said, were against specific employees of the company and did not amount to defamation of the company itself.

“Specifically making aspersions against individuals in a company and accusing such persons who are incharge of the affairs of the Company for conducting themselves resulting in loss to the Company, will not amount to any kind of insinuation against the company itself. The communication is specifically directed towards the Regional Manager-Mr.Pavan Kumar Reddy and Chief Manager Sujit Kumar of the Company. In the said circumstances it cannot be said that the Company has been defamed. The grievance if any would be in the personal capacity of the said persons namely Mr.Pavan Kumar Reddy-Regional Manager and Mr.Sujit KumarChief Manager.”

Justice K Surender passed the order in a petition filed by the accused for quashing of complaint against him under Section 500 of IPC (defamation).

As per the company, the accused was its former distributor and upon being terminated from the post, he had sent subsequent distributors threatening emails, which were defamatory of the company and its employees.

On the contrary, the accused contended that the company could not have filed the complaint as nothing was said against it in the communication.

While quashing the complaint, Justice Surender noted that in the communication stated to be defamatory, the accused had spoken highly of the company. His grievance was related to certain employees of the company, who allegedly colluded with other distributors to terminate his distributorship.

Concluding that if the individuals referred to in the communication felt defamed, it was up to them to approach authorities in their personal capacity, the court added,

“The Company when not defamed cannot espouse the cause of its employees to file a private complaint for defamation. The person defamed only can approach the Court and file a complaint. The communication clearly refers to the Regional Manager and Chief Manager doing illegal acts, as such, it is for them in their individual capacity to lodge a complaint. Since there is nothing in the communication which defames the Company as a whole, the proceedings initiated by the Company cannot be allowed to continue.”

Counsel for petitioner (accused): Advocate Chetluru Sreenivas assisted by Krishna Vennelakanti

Counsel for respondents (complainant): Advocate T. Vijaya Kumar Reddy for respondent No.1, S. Sudershan, and Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2

Case Title: Mr. Vuppula Manga Raju v. V.S.T. Industries Ltd. Rep. and Anr., Criminal Petition No. 11872/2016

Click here to read/download order