The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum oi Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to the quash FIR No.697/2024 on 0710812024, on the file of Police brroornrgrr, and also the c.c.No.332g of 2024, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Ci-ass (Excise), Ranga Reddy District Cum-V Additional Judicial Magistrate of Firs Class-ium-Additionil Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar on the grounds mentioned above. B ./' l-A- NO: 'l OF 2025 r Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C (Old Act) Section 528 BNSS 2023 (New Act)praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.3329 of 2024, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ranga Reddy District Cum-V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar pending disposal of the Criminal Petition l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the counter filed in Crlp. No.85112025 with liberty to file relevant counter in above case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the fVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.Laxman, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Surepalli Prasanth Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER t 't THE HON'BLE STIRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.851 OF 202s ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ,BNSS,) by petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3329 of 2024 on the hle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ranga Reddy District-cum-V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Ecrst-Cum-AJCJ, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against petitioners under Section 351 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ,BNS).

2. Heard Mr. A. Laxman, learned counsel fo} petitioners, Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public prosecutor for respondent No.l/State and Mr. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record .

3. On the basis of a complaint, an FIR bearing No.697 of 2024 catne to be registered on OT .OA.2O24 at Saroor Nagar !E- I 2 ],\K. J ( RLI' 8i I l0li Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate under Section 351 read with Section 3(5) of BNS. 4 Respondent No.2 in the complaint allegecl that accused Nos.l to 3 are abusing 1n filthy language and have been harassing them. That on 23.07.2024 at l4:OO hours, r"'hiie her husband was arranging fiber sheet on the doors, their neighbours started a frght without any reason and threatened rrith dire consequences. Hence, FIR.

5. Charge sheet is filed, on investigation, chargc sheet rerreals that accused Nos.1 to 3 were harassing respondent No.2, abused respondent No.2's husband, while lixing fiber sheet on the doors.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners/ accused submitted that respondent No.2's husband is a Police Officer and has influenced in getting the complaint lodged, FIR registered, setting the criminal law into motion. That the accused/ petitioners appeared before the Police and stated that a CC Camera ts facing towards the bathroom of petitioners set up by respondent No.2 and her husband, violating their right to privacy)* spite of there being a ,/ _) JAK. J cRLt 8ir 20ti Memorandum of Undertal<ing to renlove the CC Camera. That CC Camera was not removed and it is oniy for this reason, when accused/ petitioners asked, a false case was booked. It is also submitted that l\,Iernorandurn ol Undertaking, dated 13 .12.2023, with photographs and videos .*'ere presented before Saroor Nagar Police Station and the Police refused to enteltain the grievarrce. That charge sLreet is filed lcr criminal intirnidation. 7 . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that FIR bearing No.320 of 2025 came to be registered on Lhe basis of a complaint dated 25.03.2025, at Saroor Nagar Police Station, by accused No.2. That the contents in the FIR are that CC Camera is fixed towalds the complainant's bathrobm (accused Nos.2's) and pictures of complainant and her daughter were captured and that on 22.O3.2025 at night hours, when she was going to the bathroom, pictures u ere captured on the mobile phone from the bedroom window of respondent No.2. That, husband of respondent No.2 (Police Officer) abused complainant, her daughter and misbehaved. Hence, case registered under Sections 78 and 79 of BNS in FIR No.320 of

2025. JJ.. 4 !- l.\k , ('RLP Srl l(lli

8. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.2 / de-facto complainant. It is averred in the counter affldavit that complainant and accused are neighbours and were having cordial relations from 2005. That from past 2 to 3 years, petitioners bore grudge for not extending a hand loan of Rs. i,00,000/-. There are several other allegations such as, that petitioner No.2 is a divorcee, is married to petitioner No- 1 and used to quarrel rvith respondent No.2 and that a false complaint was made. That on 30.1O.2023, petitioners blackmailed her husband on the allegation that CC Camera is pointed towards their bathroom, rvhich is false and the allegation that they tried to demolish the bathroom and remove the pipelines is also fa-lse. 9 . It is further averred that CC Camera was never fixed towards petitioners' residence and photos are presented to the Court showing the positioning of cameras. It is observed that there is hardl-y 3 feet distance between the houses.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is intending to appoint a new counsel- This Court is rccorded the submissions made b}' the earlier t 5 J.\I., J (RLP 851 -:02 5 t counsel on record. There is no bar on respondent No.2 to engage al advocate or counsel of his/her choice

11. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

72. Entire factu-al rnatrix is in a very narrow compass, respondent No.2 and accused/petitioners are neighbours, they iived peacefully for 15 years. For last 2 to 3 years differences cropped up. Case and counter case have been filed against each other. In the complaint bJ, respondent No.2 dated 07.O8.2024, it is alleged that petitioners/ accused abused them, there ere no other allegation(s). It appears that there was a quarrel, when husband of respondent |1o.2 was fixing fiber sheet on the doors. There are nb specilic allegations with regard to any accusation or threatening with dire consequences, except a general statement that accused used filthy language and threatened with dire consequences. A complaint is lodged against husband of respondent No.2 (Police Officer) for capturing the pictures on camera, pointing the CC cameras towards the bathroom of the accused/ petitioners. 6 .t\[.I CRLP gi1 l()li

13. On the first occasion, when this Court queried as to why camera was pointed towards the bathroom of others, which amounts to invasion of right to privacy. Learned counsel stated on the next date that, the CC camera pointed towards bathroom u,as removed. The said statement was reiterated across the Bar by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. But, it was repeatedlv reiterated by the counsel for petitioners/ accused that camera is not removed, that it is still there lt was submitted to the Court that husband of respondent No'2 (Police Ofticer) n as behind all these events. Pointing a CC camera toq'ards the bathroom of a neighbour is an invasion of right to privacy.

74. Be that as it may, this Court again requegted learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to get instructions whether the CC cameras are removed or not. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that respondent No.2's husband, an officer in the police department, has exhibited rigidness in not obliging to the request initially. This Court informed learned counsel for respondent No.2 that such an act is an indecent act and rvould shou, the oflicer in poor light. This Court requested the learned advocate to counsel tl-ie officer and \*, A ;i. u. tr 7 I,\I.- J cRt-l' s: t l0li ensure that the CC cantcras are removed. Learned counsei sought iurther time.

15. An act of this nature cartnot be condoned, it is a despicable act. This Court requestei the counsel appearing for responrlent No.2 to ask the husband of respcndent No 2 not to involve in such indecent acts. The husband of responclent No.2 (Police Officer) rvas adamant and rigid in spite of courts directive, when the Court took a very serious view of the matter, the husbald oI respondent No'2 seems to have obliged. This act is unbecoming of a public servant'

16. When this Court queried learneC counsel as to whether the CC cameras are removed, it was siated across the Bar I that respondent No.2's husband was present in the Court anci on instructions from him, counsel submitted to the Court that respondent No.2 removed the CC cameras and that respondent No.2 would not do such acts or he would not permit respondent No.2 to do such acts and that the dispute has been resolved amicably. This Court requested learned counsel for respondent No.2 that such acts should not be committed in future l I 8 Jr\t'- J CRLP 8il 202i

17. Charge sheet is hled under Section 351 read with 3(5) of BNS. ln view of the amicable settlement of the issue, which appcars to be a neighbourhood disturbance in the relationship between two neighbours as noted supra, nothing more call be penned. As it is represented by both counsels that matter is settled amicably, this Court is inclined to consider the submissions as both the parties are neighbours and have to live amicably. Needless to state that respondent No.2, her family members artd her husbald (officer who is present in the Court) sha-ll not commit such acts in the future i.e., installing CC cameras pointing -towards washrooms/ bathrooms of the neighbours. It is made clear that they shall not install anv cameras pointing towards quch areas which affect the right to privacy of others.

18. For reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings against petit ioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.3329 of 2024 ot:. the file of the Judicial I\{agistrate of First Class (Excise), Ranga Reddy District-cum- V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class East-Cum- i l 9 J,\K.I clllP Ni I lrDi AJCJ, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagair, are riable to be rluashed ard are hereby quashed. 19 Accordingly, the crirninal petition is ailowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sl_rall stand closed SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY SI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, t 'l . The Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Rahga Reddy District-Cum- V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum- Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District, at L.B.Nagar. 2. The Station House Officer, Saroornagar, Rachakonda. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the StaE of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri A.Laxman, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 6, Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] NVB/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 ORDER CRLP.No.851 of 2025 ,,.. ," lt.- <' ( t: $B SEP Tffi * Rr .s . ,:."1 ,:,\1?" (l t ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION o4(A' .hn