"'--"' Police Station, Yadadri Bhongii District. High Court, UyOeiadaO. 2. Smt v. Jangamma, Wo Srisailam, R/o Anthammagudem Vil

Petition under section 482 ot cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Accused No- 2 in cI c. ruo. t soa of 2021 , Before the Judiciar.. First crass Magistrate, choutuppar incruding ihe appearance of petitioner pending disposar of the above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorsndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CH LAXMI NARAYANA, Advocate for the petitioner and the pubric prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.226 OF 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1564 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First CIass Magistrate, Choutuppal (for short ,the learned trial Court') registered for the offence under Section 509 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,)

02. Heard Sn CH. Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and Smt.S l\/adhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 . No representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant_ respondent No.2 is the victim. The petitioner_accused No.2 is a Doctor and running Sigma Hospital at Dilsukhnagar. Two months prior to the present complaint, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint vide FIR/Crime No.20B of 2017, with the Station House Officer at Malakpet police Station, alleging that 2 the petitioner-accused No.2 conducted a surgery on her and attempted to remove her kidney without her knowledge or consent. lt is alleged that to produce the photographs of the complainant as defence evidence, the petitioner-accused No.2 instructed the accused No.1 to collect the photographs of the complainant without her knowledge. For which, the accused No.1 along with accused Nos.3 to 5 had captured the photographs of the complainant, when she was alone in the fields and handed over the same to the petitioner-accused No.2. Thus, the accused No.1 to 5 outraged her modesty and committed an offence under Section 509 read with 34 of IPC

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is nothing to do with the alleged offence. The petitioner-accused No.2 is no way connected with the allegations levelled in charge sheet There are no specific allegations against the petitioner- accused No.2 either in the complaint or in the charge sheet The Police without any proper investigation filed the charge sheet. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner- accused No.2 are false and baseless. The previous complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 against the 3 petitioner-accused No.2 which was registered as a case in Crime No.208 of 2017 for the offence under Section 336 of lPC, was challenged before this Court vide Criminal petition No.4246 of 2018 and the same was dismissed as infructuous, as the said crime was closed by police referring it as ,lack evidence'. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attrdct the offence under Section 509 read with 34 of lPC. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2.

05. On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the State_respondent No.1 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full_ fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a Doctor and the respondent No.2 was his patient. On the allegation that-the petitioner_accused 4 No.2 attempted to remove her kidney without her knowledge or consent, a case in Crime No.20B of 2017 was filed by the respondent No.2. Subsequently, the said crime was closed by the Police referring the same as 'lack of evidence'. Now, in the present case on hand, it is alleged that wrth a view to produce the photographs of the respondent No.2 as a defence evidence, the petitioner-accused No.2 got photographed the pictures of the complainant by the accused Nos.1 , 3 to 5, without her knowledge or consent.

07. A careful perusal of the record discloses the petitioner-accused No.2 is not directly involved in the crime and it is crystal clear that he never captured the photographs of the respondent No.2. lt is alleged that on the instructions of the petitioner-accused No.2, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 have captured the photographs of the respondent No.2 with the Samsung mobile phone. lt is important to note here that in order to connect the accused to the allegations, the charge sheet does not contain any incriminating material that links the cell phone to any of the individuals named as accused 5

08. To prove the basic allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2 for the alleged offence, the prosecution must demonstrate that the petitioner-accused No.2 had shared a common intention to insult the woman's modesty. ln order to prove the alleged common intention between the accused Nos.1 to 5, no independent witness was examined by the Police. However, even as per the allegations levelled in the charge sheet, there is no specific allegation of intention to insult the respondent No.2's modesty. lt appears that there is no role or direct involvement of the petitioner-accused No.2 in the alleged crime. ln other words, it can be held that the present complaint was the result of previous animosity between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.2, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide. and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Therefore, even though if all the allegations made in the charge sheet are taken on their face value, the required material ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 509 read with 34 of lpC are not made out against the petitioner-accused No.2. .- \ \t \- *.1 - \

09. ln State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and othersl the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia held that: "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Afticle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Couft or othervvise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly deflned and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (!) where the allegationp made in the First lnformation Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (!) where the allegations in the First lnformation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Seclion 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (!) where the uncontroverled allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; ' rggz scc (suPP) 1 33s 7 (!) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 1 55(2) of the Code; (!) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on lhe basrs of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (9) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is -a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (!) where a criminal proceeding is manifes y attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

10. ln the present case on hand, as observed supra, the entire charge sheet remained silent with regard to the role or involvement of the petitioner-accused No.2 in the alleged crime. Moreover, there is no incriminating material to show that the alleged photographs were captured by the accused persons with their mobile phone. The element of common intention between the accused persons is not proved. Even if B the allegations are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute any alleged offences against the petitioner-accused No.2.

11. ln view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be held that the present complaint is a consequence of prior animosity between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.2. The criminal proceedings appear to be manifestly tainted with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive, aimed at wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner-accused No.2 and harassing him on account of personal enmity and private grudge. Therefore, the present case falls within the ambit of point No.7 of Ch.Bhajan Lal's case cited supra. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 2 tn C.C.No.1564 ot 2021 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal, are hereby quashed w I As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// I Sd- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO NT REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFI CER To, r \ \

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chotuppal. 2. The Additional Judicial Firs[ Class Magistrate at Bhongir a. The Station House officer, Pochampally Police Station, Yadadri Dist' a. one CC to sRl Cg L,qxUiNARAYANA, Advocate [oPUC] S. iwo CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUT]

6. Two CD CoPies SM HIGH COURT DATED: 2710612025 c s t) 0 t,J t 2 a 4,.:.. *;-. -:- - - ,i ; ,.-:." ;2' ORDER GRLP.No.226 o12023 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q u €