Judgment :- (1) This petition is filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C. No.1697 of 2005 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad relating to offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. (2) Though in the complaint the respondents 1 to 4 alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 500 IPC it is stated that the lower Court took the case on file for offence punishable under Section 500 IPC only. The alleged imputation complained in this case is news item published in Hyderabad tabloid of Eenadu daily news paper on 14-11-2003. The said news item is to the effect that the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission issued non bailable warrants against Subratho Rai, Chairman and Managing Director of 1st respondent company, Khadir, State Manager of the 1st respondent company, Shiv Kumar Pandey, C.M.D. of the 2nd respondent company, O.P. Srivastava, C.M.D. of the 4th respondent company. There is no mention about the 3rd respondent company at all in the news item. In spite of it, the 3rd respondent company also figures as one of the complainants in the complaint filed in the lower Court. The news item further reads that non bailable warrants were issued against the above executive of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in litigation filed by A-3 of Sahara Estates Colony Owners Welfare Association. (3) Facts in this case are not in much dispute. There is no dispute that the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, the State Commission) issued non bailable warrants against the above named persons on 10-11-2003 in P.P.No. 47/2003 for non compliance of order passed by the said commission. There is no dispute that on 11-11-2003 the persons against whom non bailable warrants were issued filed recall petition before the State Commission and the said petition was dismissed on the same date. There is also no dispute that when the aggrieved parties approached this Court, this Court on 12-11-2003 set aside order dated 11-11-2003 passed by the State Commission. There is no dispute that on 11-11-2003 the persons against whom non bailable warrants were issued filed recall petition before the State Commission and the said petition was dismissed on the same date. There is also no dispute that when the aggrieved parties approached this Court, this Court on 12-11-2003 set aside order dated 11-11-2003 passed by the State Commission. It is alleged that even though the High Court set aside order passed by the State Commission, News item was published on 14-11-2003 by A-1 and A-2 in their newspaper about issuing of non bailable warrants by the State Commission on 10-11-2003 and that it was published by A-1 and A-2 in collusion with A-3 to A-12 with a view to defame the complainants/ respondents 1 to 4. When there is no dispute about facts, publication of the incident which happened on 10-11-2003 contains only facts and no imputations muchless comments on the facts. (4) Fourth exception to Section 499 IPC reads as follows.: Fourth Exception Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts:-It is not defamation to published substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. (5) Relying upon M.A. Rumugam v. Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy (1) AIR 2009 SC 341 and Sukra Mahto v. Basudeo Kumar Mahto (2) AIR 1971 SC 1567 and M. Malla Reddy v. T. Venktmma Reddy (3) 1999 (6) ALT200 and M. Siva Rama Murthy v. K.S.NBabu (4) 2000 (1) ALT (Crl)494of our High Court and another un-reported decision of this Court dated 14-6-2006 in Crl.P. No. 2939/2004 (J.V.K.T. Prabhakar Rao v. Dr.H.C.Mishra), it is contended by the respondents' counsel that burden is on the accused to prove exceptions to Section'499 IPC and that it would be a matter of evidence to be produced during trial to show bona fides of the accused. On the other hand, it is contended by the petitioners' counsel that when facts are all admitted and when allegations in the complaint themselves proved existence of conditions required for application of fourth exception to Section 449 IPC the petitioners need not be driven to trial. As observed earlier, the news item contains only true facts and nothing more. It is not the respondents' case that any part of the news item is incorrect on facts. As observed earlier, the news item contains only true facts and nothing more. It is not the respondents' case that any part of the news item is incorrect on facts. It is not the respondents' case that any part of the news item is incorrect on facts. It is well settled principle of law that what is admitted need not be proved. There is no dispute that non bailable warrants were issued by the State Commission against the above 4 named persons belonging to three complainant companies. In the absence of any dispute on the aspect, this court is of the opinion that assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that the news item contains any imputation, A-1 and A-2 are entitled to take protection under Fourth exception to 499 IPC because the news item contains substantially true report of proceedings of a Court and result of such proceedings. (6) It is contended by the petitioners' counsel that non-bailable warrants were issued by the State Commission against individuals and not companies and that news item in question gives their names with their positions in the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and that therefore in any event there was no attempt to make any imputation against the companies as such. In these circumstances, though it can be contended that because of the news item, reputation of the above named 4 persons came down in the society, it cannot be said that reputation of the companies was in any way affected. The news item did not project the companies covered by respondents 1, 2 and 4, but only mentioned names of individuals against whom non bailable warrants were issued by the State Commission. (7) It is contended by the petitioners' counsel that as per Section 199 Cr.P.C. the Court is expected to take cognizance of the offence on complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence and in case such person is under age of 18 years or is an idiot or a lunatic or is from very sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who according to the local customs and manners ought not to be compelled to appear in public, then some other person with leave of the Court may make a complaint on his or her behalf. Section 199 Cr.P.C. is applicable in respect of offences punishable under chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, in which chapter, Section 500 IPC occurs. Therefore, it is contended that complaint for offence punishable under Section 500 IPC can only be made by real persons and not by juristic persons for offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. Even though primafacie there appears to be some force in this contention of the petitioner's counsel having regard to plain language of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. case law from other High Courts indicate otherwise. In Sugar Works Ltd. v. Mansingrao Dhondiram Kadam (5) 1977 Crl.L.J. 2021 (Bom) it was held by the Bombay High Court that where a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is defamed, a complaint filed by a person through a power of attorney executed by a director on the strength of a resolution by the Board of Directors is maintainable. The Patna High Court in Deobrat Sastri v. Ranga Bahadur Singh (6) AIR 1950 Pat 545 held that where a co-operative society is defamed, itmanageristakenas the aggrieved person who can maintain a complaint for offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. In the above reported decisions, the question was who can represent a company or a society in a complaint complaining defamation of that company or society; and no question arose whether a company or a society can be termed as "person aggrieved" for the purpose of Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. In my opinion, this question may not arise in the case on hand because the alleged defamation was only against 4 named persons against whom the State Commission issued non-bailable warrants and not the complainant-companies (the respondents 1 to 4). Having regard to contents of the news item in question, it cannot be said that the companies are "persons aggrieved" in this case as per Section 199(1) Cr.P.C. (8) It is contended by the 2nd respondent's counsel that grievance of the complainants is that even though the news item was published on 14-11-2003, it does not cover proceedings of the High Court in which non bailable warrants issued by the State Commission were recalled or cancelled and that the news item was made in a scuttled matter intentionally. The news item in question reads that news reporter supplied the said information on 13-11-2003. The news item in question reads that news reporter supplied the said information on 13-11-2003. News reporter at and around the A.P.State Consumers Redressal Commission located at Khairatabad may be different from news reporter in High Court located in another area at a distant place in the city of Hyderabad. The editor or the news reporter may or may not be able to know further orders passed by another Court on the reported item. Further, the news item does not read that information covered by it was furnished to the reporter by any of A-3 to A-17 who filed consumer dispute against these companies and executives therein. Supposing the same news item was published on 11-11-2003 and not on 14-11-2003, in such a case, this news item would not become a defamation statement, even according to the complainants. Simply because this news item was published with a delay of three days giving true picture of proceedings in the State Commission, in my opinion, it will not become a defamatory statement. It is evident that the respondents 1 to 4 filed the private complaint in the lower Court against A-1 and A-2 by impleading A-3 to A-17 as conspirators with a view to take vengeance against A-3 to A-17 who filed consumer dispute against them in the Commission and obtained non-bailable warrants. (9) In Udayam Telugu Daily v. State of Andhra Pradesh (7) 1987 Crl.L.J. 145 this Court ruled out possibility of conspiracy between Managing Director of the company which publishes the paper with persons in editorial board for publishing day to day news item containing the alleged defamatory statements. The petitioners' Company also placed reliance on the same decision for the proposition that the 2nd petitioner/A-2 who is Managing Director of Ushodaya publications publishing Eenadu news paper cannot be held liable for items of news published in the paper as he has nothing to do with day to da v publication of news items in that paper. The petitioners' Company also placed reliance on the same decision for the proposition that the 2nd petitioner/A-2 who is Managing Director of Ushodaya publications publishing Eenadu news paper cannot be held liable for items of news published in the paper as he has nothing to do with day to da v publication of news items in that paper. Further, in Vivek Goenka v. State of Maharashtra (8) 2003 Cri.L.J. 4258 the Bombay High Court on the same reasoning quashed proceedings against Managing Director of Lok Satta daily on the ground that managing editor or Managing Director is supposed to have control over the management of office of the news paper and its financial aspects and he is not directly concerned with publications of news items unless there is material on record to come to such a conclusion. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no prima facie case is made out either on facts or in law for offence punishable under Section 500 IPC against any of A-1 and A-2. (10) In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No, 1697/2005 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.