ORDER : 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No. 112 of 2020 on the file of Srikalahasti Rural Police Station, Tirupati Urban Police District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 500 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘I.P.C.’]. 2. The case put up by complaint, in brief, are as follows: (a) Complainant has been working as Public Relation Officer in Srikalahasti Pipes Limited for the last 27 years. Petitioner/Accused No. 1, who is C.O.O of Srikalahasti Pipes Limited, on 16.06.2020 posted a lengthy message regarding the status and caliber of the Complainant and efforts towards the development of the Company in Digital WhatsApp Group formed by 247 members, which led to insult the complainant, for which, the Complainant asked Petitioner/Accused No. 1 and he threatened the Complainant with dire consequences. (b) As such, the Complainant gave a complaint against Accused Nos.1 and 2 to the Police, based on which, a case in Crime No. 112 of 2020 was registered by Srikalahasti Rural Police for the offences under Sections 341, 500 and 506 IPC. (c) It is relevant to extract the complaint, which reads as follows: “I submit that, I have received a call from one of the members of the said whatsapp group on 16-06-2020 saying that Mr.Suresh Khandelwal COO Srikalahastipipes LTD has posted a lengthy message trolling me particularly about my status, caliber and effort towards the development of Srikalahasti Pipes Ltd. in an insulting, degrading way. I have went through the message which has all the false information, I felt so sad and insulting. I have received a number of calls from all the other members of the group about the message; I am very much insulted with the message posted in the Whatsapp group. Not only this message I heard so many fake news wondering in Srikalahasti about me towards the said company, I am questioned by number of persons regarding this troll and the fake obligations, which were transferring from mouth to mouth. I have suffered mental agony because of such fake news, negative publicity on me. The Message posted in What'sapp group is as follows: Mr. I have suffered mental agony because of such fake news, negative publicity on me. The Message posted in What'sapp group is as follows: Mr. Mohan Naidu has not helped for contribution of even one cent of farming land at the time of establishment of factory. When he joined, he don't even have net worth to afford a cycle, but during this collaboration with factory, he earned around 50 crores of net worth at the cost of factory, by indulging in illegal affairs. At the time of acquisition of lands by the company, he manipulated land rices with land owners and made company to pay escalated prices by taking the benefit of difference between actual price and amount paid by the company (around 2 crores). The above scenario happened in the acquisition of following lands having surve nos Malapaka Village-207/208/209/317-92 Acers, Chindipelli Village-256/260/261267/ 268-28 Acers. There is also a instance where he insisting on the payment of acquisition of land having survey No. of 355 of 3.3 acers where the land is no existence. He made company to enter into a contract of grass pillows with his Benamis and earning around 4 lakhs per month on such contracts. To cover up all his fraudulent acts, he exercised rowdism in the premises of factory by provoking Rachaguneri villagers. He was the one who provoked villagers to attack business development head, Ramesh babu and cement plant general manager, as they were restraining his contracts. Whenever there is a denial from the management for any of the contracts he approached for, there would be some disputes happening on coincidence in the factory. He resolves such disputes as if he is company's big person and makes his contracts get approved as a quid pro quo. Apparently what no one knows is Mohan Naidu is the one who instructs for happening of the same. Perhaps if the management could deal with villagers directly, there would be no disputes arising in future. Even the political hurdles happening to the company are because of Mohan Naidu as Kalahasti MLA, Madhusudhan Reddy acting on his behalf. 4. After getting to know about this message, I left my cabin to reach SPL COO khandelwal sir but he behaved very rashly and threatened me. Even the political hurdles happening to the company are because of Mohan Naidu as Kalahasti MLA, Madhusudhan Reddy acting on his behalf. 4. After getting to know about this message, I left my cabin to reach SPL COO khandelwal sir but he behaved very rashly and threatened me. After that I'm returning back from company to my home while I reached to railway gate, near Srikalahasti pipes limited one V. Bhathimddy, SPL PRO restrained and threatened me in dire consequences by saying why you spread rumors on me, while you meet with SPL COO Khandelwal. I respectable submit that, this is not only a forward message this message is intentionally posted and it is not only abuse, this is a planned and criminal conspiracy against me to spoil my reputation and end my carrier also. I am very much suffered mentally and physically and I have lost my lifetime reputation.” Grounds Sought for Quashment 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner/ Accused No. 1 filed the present petition on the following grounds: (a) Petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he has been implicated in a false case. There is no element of truth in any of the allegations leveled in the report and that the said allegations are only invented for the purpose of implicating the Petitioner in the present case with a view to harass him. (b) Allegations are vague and general in nature without giving the date and time of offence including the manner in which the incident alleged to have been occurred. The Petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged WhatsApp message. (c) If a person is aggrieved of the offence under Section 500 IPC, he has to file a private complaint and that he is not supposed to file a police report. So far as the allegation relating to Section 341 IPC is concerned, it was attributed only to Accused No. 2 but not against the Petitioner. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri D.S. Siva Darshan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No. 2. 5. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri D.S. Siva Darshan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that the alleged incident occurred on 16.06.2020 and the complaint has been lodged (8) eight days thereafter. It is also stated that the Petitioner herein forwarded the message that he received and he is the Chief Operative Officer. It is also further submitted by the learned counsel that the case against the Petitioner for the alleged offences is not maintainable on Police report. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others, (2016) 7 SCC 221 . 6. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison would submit that it is a premature state to quash the proceedings. It is also stated that the case is not only under Section 500 IPC but also for the offences under Sections 341 and 506 read with 34 IPC. There are absolutely no grounds to quash the case against the Petitioner at this stage. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 112 of 2020 on the file of Srikalahasti Rural Police Station, Tirupati Urban Police District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 500 and 506 read with 34 IPC? Determination by the Court 8. As seen from the contents of the complaint, Section 341 IPC is not applicable to the present Petitioner. The main offence as alleged against the Petitioner is that he committed criminal defamation because the message which was circulated in the WhatsApp is defamatory in nature. Determination by the Court 8. As seen from the contents of the complaint, Section 341 IPC is not applicable to the present Petitioner. The main offence as alleged against the Petitioner is that he committed criminal defamation because the message which was circulated in the WhatsApp is defamatory in nature. If a person is aggrieved thereby, he can approach the Court by filing a private complaint seeking action against the wrong doer for the offence under Section 500 IPC. There is a bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C. to file a Police report for the offence under Section 500 IPC. For better adjudication, it is relevant to extract Section 199 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: Section 199. Prosecution for defamation: (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence: Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from 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, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. 9. As seen from the record, basing on the report submitted by Respondent No. 2, the Police lodged the present case. A complaint of criminal defamation cannot be made directly to the police and a court could take up cognizance of the offence of defamation on the complaint by the aggrieved party. 10. So far as the offence under Section 341 IPC is concerned, it is relevant to refer to Section 341 IPC which reads as under: “Section 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint - Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” 11. A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 341 IPC are that the accused of the offence should have restrained any person. In the present case, it appears that no such wrongful restraint has been committed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1. A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 341 IPC are that the accused of the offence should have restrained any person. In the present case, it appears that no such wrongful restraint has been committed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the Petitioner has committed the offence under Section 341 IPC, since the ingredients of such offence are not made out. 12. Coming to the offence under Section 506 IPC, it prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. “Criminal Intimidation” as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under: “503. Criminal intimidation - Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation - A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.” 13. A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intention to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. In the instant case, except mere allegation that the Petitioner threatened the complaint, no material has been placed on record to show that there was intention on the part of the Petitioner to cause alarm to the complainant. As such, the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 IPC do not attract against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1. 14. In the instant case, except mere allegation that the Petitioner threatened the complaint, no material has been placed on record to show that there was intention on the part of the Petitioner to cause alarm to the complainant. As such, the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 IPC do not attract against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1. 14. With regard to the offence under Section 500 IPC, in view of the bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C. and as was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, for the offences under Chapter XXI of IPC, the only remedy of the complainant, who is aggrieved of the said offences, is to file a private criminal complaint as understood in Sections 190 and 200 of IPC and then for the competent criminal court concerned to take appropriate decision in the matter of taking cognizance and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the very registering of the Police report, in the present case, for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC is not maintainable. In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner in the present crime. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 112 of 2020 on the file of Srikalahasti Rural Police Station, Tirupati Urban Police District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 500 and 506 read with 34 of IPC, are hereby quashed. 16. It is also made clear that the Complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum as per the procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 500. 17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.