Criminal Petition No. 1386 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

of BJP leaders like Sri. Eetala Rajender and Sri. 'l'arun Chugh. In April 2023. he was provided financial assistance to farmers in Siddipet afl-ected by heavy rains xi. On 28.04.2023, rvhile he was in his office, at panjagutta, policemen in civil clothes raided his office, took him into 4 K I-.J Crl P No.l386 of2025 custody and produced him before the petitioner, Task Force Police Officer, who threatened him stating that A. I was angry at him for organizing programs in his constituency without his consent xll. They also threatened him that they would close his chapter iIhe does not change his party. When he refused, they took his phone number, took him to CCS police station where two more cases vide Cr.Nos.908 of 2023 and 909 of 2023 were registered against him. Later they retumed his phone and was sent to j udicial remand. xl[. Later he was enlarged on bail in both cases. xlv. He was again implicated in a false case vide Cr.No.522 of 2023 of Ghatkesar Police station on the complaint fited by Mr. Avinash. On 29.08.2023, he received an e-mail from 'Apple' (threat notification@ apple. Com) waming him that his I-phone might be targeted by State sponsored attackers. The e-mail stated that such attackers could remotely access his sensitive data, communication, and even devices, microphone or camera. 5 KL.J Crl.P. No.l386 of2025 xvl. He aspired to contest the MLA seat for Siddipet on BJP ticket, but when he was not nominated, he joined IISP party and secured the MLA ticket. xvll. During the election campaign, he contacted numerous supporters and follorvers. Many of them later informed him that they had received threatening calls warning them not to attend his events. These individuals also reported that the caller knew about their conversations which led him to suspect that his phone was being tapped xvlll. He suspect that A. 1, using State intelligence resources, was monitoring his moments, activities, his associates and his family members to spoil his political career. His Mobile Nos.901406247 1,9593766666 as well as his wife's mobile No.9100245853 were illegally tapped. He suspected that A.1 abusing his power as a minister influenced the Police officials to rnonitor his activities. The Police department did not book a case on his petition and did not take any action against the persons who had put surveillance over him, his relatives, his associates and harassed -.. t:r 6 KL.J Cd P. No 1386 of2025

6. The petitioner sought to quash the said FIR against him contending as follows:- I ll. I ll. The allegations made against him are vague and baseless. There is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. 2nd respondent failed to explain the said delay. lv. On the very same allegations i.e. with regard to phone tapping, a case in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was registered with the very same police station and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and other accused vide PRC No.260 of2024. Therefore, on the very sarne allegations, registration of second FIR in Cr.No. 1205 of 2024 against the peritioner is impermissible. vt. 2nd respondent has submitted a complaint to the Director General of Police only on 19.06.2024 making certain allegation against A. L vll. The statement of 2"d respondent in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 01.09.2024 I 7 KL.J Crl.P. No ll86 of2025 vlu. The petitioner has lodged a complaint with the Police concemed and if the Police concerned failed to act upon the same' he has to avail other remedies available under law such as filing of a complaint under Section 200 of Cr'P'C' etc' Instead of doing so, he has submitted representation to the Director General of Police only on 19'06.2024 and filed writ petition vide W'P' No.19502 of 2024 seeking a direction to the DGI'and others to act upon the complaint lodged by him' 'Ihereafter, he withdrew the said writ petition and therefore, the said writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, on 22.1 l -2024' 1X After lapse of considerable time, He has lodged a complaint dated 01 .l?-.2024 against the petitioner herein and others The contents of the said complaint and his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr'No'243 of 2024 lacks the ingredients of the olfences atleged, more particularly Section 386 and 409 of IPC- Even then, without considering the said aspects, the Police, Panjagutta registered the aforesaid FIR' x There arc several cases registered against the 2nd respondent' In some cases. he was arrested by the Investigating Officer' He ) r";: l- i -,- 8 KL,J Crl P No 1386 of2025 o never complained about the alleged harassment of the petitioner with regard to phone tapping etc. xl. The petitioner was arrested in Cr.No.243 of 2024 on29.03.2024 and he was released on bail only on 30.01 .2025.

7. Both the leamed Public Prosecutor and leamed counsel appearing for 2nd respondent opposed the present criminal petition contending as follows:- I The allegations in Cr.No.243 of 2024 are against the society and the allegations against the petitioner herein in Cr.No.l205 of 2024 with regard to 2nd respondent individually. Therefore, registration of Cr.No.1205 ol 2024 cannot be treated as second complaint. ll. A.2 worked as Additional Superintendent of Police in Nalgonda, got close acquaintance with A.l the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, at that relevant point of time. The said fact was admitted by him, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In connivance with the A.1, the petitioner bommitted the aforesaid oflences which are serious in nature. k I o l ll tv. 9 I,L,J Crl l' No 1386 of2025 A.l and A.6 in Cr.No. 243 of 2024 are absconding. He is part o1- conspiracy in tapping phones of several people including judges of this Court' Though he was retired in August, 2020, he was appointed as OSD and continued his duties as DCP, Task Force which is against law. There was no delay in lodging the complaint' vl. There is aliegation of continuous torture of 2nd respondent in the complaint dated 0l .12.2024. Investigation is pending and therelbre. it cannot be scuttled at the threshold' vlt. Apart lrom the phone tapping, there are other allegation of torture by the petitioner in the present crime. v l. A.l in the subject crime, the then Minister, has grudge over the znd respondent and therefore, at the instance of police implicated him in several cases. tx. The 2'd respondent contested as a Member of Assembly, fiom Siddipet Constituency, in which A.1 is representing- Therefbre, A.1 bore grudge against 2nd respondent. x The petitioncr/A.2 harassed the 2nd respondent. He directed his subordinates to produce 2nd respondent before him in the l'ask IO KL,J Crl P No t386 of2o25 Force office and on production, he made the 2nd respondent to kneel down. xl. xll. He has shown the same through video. Since A. I was in power, out of fear, 2nd respondent did not lodge a complaint immediately on getting message from 'Apple'on 29.08.2023. Thereafter, he submitted a representation to DGp on 19.06.2024 Therefore, there is no delay.

8. Sri E.Uma Maheshwar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri palle Nageshwar Rao, learned public prosecutor and Sri Seshadri Goalla, leamed counsel appearing lbr 2,,d respondent made their submissions extensively.

9. Sri E.Uma Maheshwar Rao, leamed counsel placed reliance on the principle laid down by the then High Court of Andhra pradesh in Tupakula Appa Rao vs. State of A.p.r, patnam Narender Reddy vs. State of Telangana2, the judgment of the Apex Court in ' (200t) scc onLine AP I575 ' Order dated 29. I L2024 in Crl.p.No, 32:,98 of 2024 EF=.:-__ KI-.J Crl.P. Nd l:186 of 2025 T.T.Antony vs. State of Keralar and Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs' State of UP4. Smt. K.Mathamma vs- State of Telanganas

10. Leamed Public prosecutor placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Courl in State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore6' Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao vs. State ACB, CIU, HyderabadT and on common order dated 29-04.2022 in Crl'P'No '1232 of 2022 and ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS COTIRT:- I 1. In the light of the said submissions, certain dates and events which are relevant and same are as follows:- On 10.03.2024, Cr.No.243 of 2024 was registered by the Police, Panjagutta, on thc complaint lodged by Sri Dandugudu Ramesh, Additionat Superintendent of Police' It ttt. On 29.01 .2024, the petitioner was arrested in the said crime' On 19.06.2024, 2nd respondent submitted a representation to the DGP with a request to take action alleging that his phone was tapped illegally. '(zoot) o st:c iscl a drl.A.No.2ll44 of l02l (irrising otrt ol-SLP (Crl)No i 152 of 2021 ' uo2u (t)ert(crt) l2 (l s.) u Crl.A.No.--- (arising out olSL.l'(Crl) No l635E of2024) ' crl.P No. I58+7 C)l l02J dated 07.0 L2025 J I t2 KL,J Crl P. No l3E6 of2025 ') lv. On 15.07.2024, he has filed W.p.No.l9502 of 2024 seeking a direction to DGP and others to consider the said representation. On 01.09.2024, his statement was recorded in Cr.No.243 of 2024 under Section 161 ofCrpC. vl. On 22.11.2024, this Court dismissed W.p.No. 19502 of 2024 as withdrawn. vll. On 01.12.2024, he has lodged a complainr with police, Panjagutta at23.00 hours and immediately on receipt of the said complaint, Police, Panjagutta registered the subject crime. vnl. On 30.01.2025, this Court granted bail to the petitioner in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and he was released on the same day on fumishing sureties.

12. In the representation dated 19.06.2024, submitted ro DGp, Telangana, 2nd respondent has stated that he received e-mail from Apple company with regard to phone tapping relating to mobile No.9014062471 and 95937066666. He received information on

29.08.2023. The Ex-Minister (A. l) in the previous governmenr influenced the officials in police Department, A.2 and his team, contentrated on his moments and also his office at Siddipet. He o 13 KI-,J Cr,.P. No 1386 of2025 contested as a Member of Legislative Assembly from Siddipet Constituency in the elections held in November,2023, as a BSP Candidate. During the said time also, A.l influenced the Police officials of the State and harassed him politicatly, which disrupted A. l's political career and made 2'd respondent a political hurdle for him. Therefore , A.l. using his political influence, implicated him in several criminal cases and tapped his phone, harassed him mentally. On the instructions of A.l, A.2 along with his staff, started following his conversations over phone with his wife, family members and friends in politics. he has threatened them. This constant surveillance disturbed privacy of 2''d respondent. The petitioner/A.2 and A- 1 also obtained call data and taken photographs from his phone and placed them on 'You 'l'ube ' social media etc.

13. ln the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 ol 2024, while reiterating the aforesaid facts, 2nd respondent fufther stated that the petitioner at the instance of A.l implicated him in several cases including crime No.49 of 2023 pending on the file o1'P.S.Shameerpet, for the off'ences under Section 376 read rvith 511 of IPC. Thus, petitioner and A.1 hatched a plan to E. E,re ,=ir_., 14 KL.J Cd P No 1186 of2025 - malign his reputation, discourage and demoralize him as he is doing charity.

14. He further stated about joining of BJP party, extending financial assistance to farmers effected in heavy rains in Siddipet in April,2023, thereafter, he received threatening messages to his mobile phone from unknown persons with dire consequences

15. On 28.04.2023, while he was present at his Panjagutta office, policemen in civil clothes raided his office, took him to their custody and produced him before A.2. The petitioner/A.2 threatened him to change his party to BRS from BJP and not to organize any programmes in A. I's constituency. He further stated about registration of two crimes i.e. Cr.Nos.908 and 909 of 2023 against him. Subsequently CCS Police have sent him to judicial remand in the said cases.

16. On 29.08.2023, he received an e-mail from threat 'notification @ apple.com' ln which they specified that 'apple' believes that he was being targeted by state-sponsored attackers. He also received threatening calls to his Apple ID 'Chakre.chikkieq) gmail.com'. These attackers are likely to target him individually I l5 KI-,J Crl.P. No.llE6 of2025 because of who he is or what he does. If his device is compromised by a State sponsored attacker, they may be able to remotely access his sensitive data cornmunications, or even the camera and microphone. On receipt of said message from Apple, he updated his i-phone as per the instructions received tl.rrough mail and he thought that his phone was rn tapprng.

17. Meanrvhilc, he did not get MLA ticket from Siddipet constituency lrorrr BJP pafty, as such he joined in BSP party and got MLA ticket lbr Siddipet constituency. During election campaign, he received threatening calls. Therefore, he suspected that A.l might be tapping his phonc. A.l was monitoring his moments, activities of his associates and his farnily members to sabotage his political career and unlawfully inf'luence the outcome of the elections.

18. It is further stated that after general assembly elections, he came to knou, through print and electronic media about the news regarding phone tapping case.

19. On ohsen,ing the same, he has realized that his phone Nos.9014062471 and also 0593766666 as well as his wife's phone number i/. 9100245853 were illegally tapped and his every moment .E:7-, -1 16 KL,J Crl.P. No.ll86 of2025 was being observed. As he got good image, refused to join in BRS party, contested as MLA from BSP party and highlighted the illegal activities done by A.1 in Siddipet Constituency, A'I bore grudge against him by abusing his power as Minister, influenced and instructed some police official to tap his phones to observe his activities and got false cases booked against him' Therefore, 2"d respondent requested the police to do justice to him' He has also submitted the hard copy of e-mail received from l-phone company to his e-mail for the purpose of investigation.

20. 2nd respondent has filed W.P.No. 19502 of 2024 to declare the action of DGP in not conducting an enquiry with regard to the petitioner's phone tapping in pursuance of his representation dated

19.06.2024, as illegal. In the said affidavit'also, he has stated about tapping of his phone. He has not made any complaint that the petitioner and A.1 harassed him. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.11.2024. Thereafter, he has lodged a complaint with the police, Panjaguta only on01.12.2024. t7 KL.J Crl P. No.l186 ot2025

21. E,ver.r in the said complaint also, his main grievance is with regard to tapping of phone and the suspicion was on A. l.

22. lt is apt to note that in the representation dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP. staternent given by him under Section I 61 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024, dated 01.09.2024, in the affidavit filed in W.P.No. 19502 of 2021 and in the complaint dated 01.12.2024 lodged with I'].S. Panjagutta, 2nd respondent has not made any allegation ivith regard to extoftion, criminal breach of trust by a pubic servant. criminal intimidation and computer related offences by the petitioner/A.2 and A. L Hc has made allegations with regard to phone tapping in the representation dated 19.06.2024 to DGP, statement under Section l6l of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and affidavit in W.P.No. 19502 of 2024. Absolutely, there is no whisper about the criminal breach of trust by public servant, extortion, criminal intimidation and computer related offences

23. ln the light ol' the same, it is relevant to extract the following sections of II'C and IT Act:-

383. Extortion.- Whoever intentionally puts nny person in f-ear of any injury to that person. or to any other. and thereby dishonestly induces the pcrson so put in fear to L r l8 KL.J Crl P No 1386 ot202,i deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anl,thing signed or sealcd which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion". 409. Criminal brcach of trust by public servant, or by banker, mcrchant or agent.- Whoevcr, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer-chant, factor, broker, attomey or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and sha arso be liabre to fine.

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 ths means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Section 66 of the IT Act:- Computer relaled offences. - Ifany person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act.refened to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both. Section 43 of IT Act. 43. Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc . - Bisssrc,t!r1i:.18:- ll,::=l G --iF'!.-,__+ J l9 KL.J Crl P No l3E6 of2025 If any person il ithout pemrission of the owner or any other person who is incharge ola computer, computer syslem or computer network,- (a)accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or cornputer rcsource; (b)downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or infomration frorn such computcr, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium; (c)introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into anl computcr, computer system or computer nclwork; (d)damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data. computer data base or any other progrzrmmes residing in such computer, computer system or c.omputer network; (e)disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer nctwork: (f)denies or causes the denial o{'access to any person authorised to access any computer. conrputer svstem or computer network by any means; (g)provides an.v assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer net['ork in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder; (h)charges the sen'ices availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering rvith or manipulating any computer, computer system. or conlputer network. (i)destroys. deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means; ()steal, conceals. dcstroys or altcrs or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter an1 computer source codc used fbr a computer resource u'ith an intention to cause damagc; hc shall be liable to pay damagcs bv way of compensation to the person so aff-ccted. I 20 KI-,J Crl P. No. t3E6 of2025 trt- n

24. In Salib @ Shalu @ Satim (supra), the Apex Court dealt with the ingredients of extortion in terms of Sections 3g3 of Ipc and punishment for extortion under Section 3g6 of IpC. The Apex Court held that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in feu. of ir.jr.y. In extortion, the wiil of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. lllustrations to the Section given in the Ipc make this perfectly clear.

25. In the said case, nowhere the first informant has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs. l0 lakhs ro rhe accused persons. Thus, the Apex court held that there is nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery ofpossession ofproperty (money) by the person put in fear. In the absence of anything to even remotely suggest that the first infqmant parted with a particular amount after being put to fear of 2t KLJ Crl P No llt6of2025 any iniury, no offence under Section 386 of IPC can be said to have been made out.

26. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal8'the Apex Court has also laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:- '(1) Wherc thc allegations madc in the first infonnation report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima lhcic constitute any offence or make out a casc acainst the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first inlbrmation report and other materials, if any, accompanl,ing the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(l ) of the Code exccpt undcr an order of a Magistrate within the purvicw ofSection 155(2) olthe Codc. (3) Where the uncontroverted 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. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence. no investigation is permitted b1.a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ofthc Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so ahsurd and inherently improbable on the basis ol which no prudent person can ever reach a .iust 3 t992 SuPp (l) SCC li5 22 KI-.J Crl.P. No 1386 of2025 i:r o conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express [ega[ bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concemed, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved PartY. (7) 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." With the said findings, relying the parameters laid down in Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court quashed the FIR against the accused therein.

27. As discussed supra, in the present case also, in the complaint, dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in his statement recorded under Section l6l Cr.P.C, in_Cr.No.243 of 2024, in the writ affidavit in W.P.No. 19602 of 2024 and in the complaint dated

01.12.2024, there is no whisper/allegation against the petitioner herein that there was actual delivery of possession of property/money by the petitioner herein by putting 2nd respondent - defacto-complainant in fear. In the absence of the same, registration of FIR for the offence 23 KI,,J (]rl P No l3t6 of2025 under Section 386 of IPC against the petitioner is impermissible and it is liabie to be quashed

28. With regard to the offence under Section 409 of IPC, there should be entrustment with property or with any dominion with any property in his capacity of a public servant. As discussed supra, in the present case, the petitioner did not whisper about the same in the complaint, dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in his sratemenr recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, in Cr.No.243 of 2024, in the writ affidavit ln W.P.No. 19602 of 2024 and in the complaint dated 0l .12.2024. The allegation against the petitioner l.rcreinlA.2 is only with regard to tapping of phone.

29. With regard to criminal intimidation, there should be threat 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 rvhich 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 amounts to criminal intimidation. As discussed supra, in the present case, there is no allegation of criminal intimidation in the representation dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in the statement ,I KL.J Crl.P. No.l386 of2025 under Section 16l of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and in writ affidavit in W.P.No. 19502 of 2024. Even in the complaint dated

01.12.2024 submitted by 2nd respondent. There is no allegation with regard to computer related offences by the 2nd respondent in the same.

30. It is apt to note that 2nd respondent lodged complaint dated

01.12.2024 with P.S.Panjagutta making the aforesaid allegations against petitioner and A. I which are not mentioned in the representation dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and in the affidavit fited in W.P.No. 19502 of 2024. Thus, the 2nd respondent improved his version in the complaint dated 01.12.2024 and submitted the said complaint to P.S.Panjagutta.

31. The petitioner in the said Crime No.243 of 2024 was in judicial custody from 29.08.2023 to 30.01.2025. The Investigating Officer has already completed investigation and laid charge sheet vide PRC No.260 of 2024. The statement of 2nd respondent herein was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in the said crime on 01.09.2024 itself as L.W.60.

32. In the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024, in the complaint dated 01.12.2024 of 2nd respondent, the 25 KI,,J Crl P No.ll8(, of2025 allegations leve led against the petitioner herein are with regard to the tapping ol- his phone. Registration of 2'd FIR with regard to very same allegations of phone tapping is impermissible. The said issue is no more res integrtt. On consideration of the several aspects, including the principle laid down by the Apex Court in T.T.Anthony (supra), Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of Indiae, Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah vs. CBIr0, Jakir Hussain Kosangi Vs. State of Andhra Pradeshrr in .Iakka Vinod Reddy vs. State of Telanganarz this Court held registration of 2nd FIR on the same set ol'allegations, is impermissible and further held that in the following cases registration oI multiple FIRs is permissible:-

20. The sun and substance of the above said iudsments is lhat I ltere is no embarso for resistration of fwo FIRs on the g cu c umstances/prounds followin (a) wlrcre tlrc allePalion; nLadc in both the FIRs are front clifkrent speclrunl, where there are different versions front r.lo ns (b same -te t ol focts mav constitute di renl o (c) v,herc tltere are two distinct offences havin's different 1 edients '12o2oy r,r scc rz "'(uoE) osc'c:at " (zo ts) t.t) At.l) I8(, (r)B) 't(202t)r:)tS Sumrnar,! i2 = 202t(2)AI-T(Crl) t7l _tir - , r) 26 KL.J Cd P No llt6 of2025 /)l rent and distinct where the alle ations are di when there are rivaI versions in res cio some e e thev would normally take shaoe of two different FIRs and ton can be carried oul under both of them bv the investi. t same Investiqa tins Asency

33. As discussed supra, with regard to the tapping of phone, the allegations in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and in the present crime vide Cr.No.1205 of 2024 are same, and both the complaints are registered by the very same Police Station i.e.P.S. Panjagutta. Therefore, the contents of statement of defacto-complainant /2nd respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and contents of complaint dated 01.12.2024 are with regard to taping of phone and therefore, registration of 2"d FIR i.e. Cr.No.l205 of 2024 by the very same police, Panjagutta is impermissible' Without considering the said aspects, Police, Panjagutta, registered CrNo. 1205 of 2024 againstthe petitioner herein/A.2 on 01.12.2024, when he was in judicial custody in Cr.No.243 of 2024. Therefore, registration of Cr.No. 1205 of 2024 is in violation of procedure laid down under law and also contrary to principle laid down by Apex court and this court in the afore-stated judgments. \\ e 27 KL.J Crl P. No l186 of202i

34. It is relevant to note that 2nd respondent was arrested in several cases rnentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. I and 2 and he was produced before leamed Magistrates concerned. But he never complained of alleged harassment by petitioner hereir r and A.l.

35. As discussed supra, the contents of complaint dated

01.12.2024 lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences more particularlr'. the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 386, 409, 50(r of IPCI and Section 66 of the IT Act, i.e. extorrion, criminal breach ol tnrst by a public servant, criminal intimidation and computer relatr't I o lli'nces. i6. It is relevant to note that there is abnormal delay in lodging complaint datcrt 01.ll.l02l by the 2"d respondent. As discussed supra, even accordins ro f"'r respondent, police in plain clothes took him to Panjagutta Police Station and produced before petitioner/A.2 on

28.04.2023. he recci",cd message from Apple company on29.09.2023. Whereas, he ha: subntiued representation to DGP on 19.06.2024, flled rvrit petilion on 15.07.2024. I{is statement in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was recorded on 01.09.2024 and thereafter, he withdrew W.P.No. 19502 ol 2024 <'tn 22.11.2024. He has lodged the present corrplaint ) )-/ I 28 KI-,J CrlI'No.l186042025 o with Police, Panjagutta on 01.12.2024. Thus, there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint against the petitioner herein. There is no explanation much less plausible explanation by the 2nd respondent with regard to the said delay.

37. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel appearing for 2nd respondent submitted that A. I was Cabinet Minister at that relevant point of time, A.2 has close acquaintance with A. I and therefore, out of fear, 2nd respondent did not lodge complaint against A.l and A.2. Thus, there is delay.

38. It is apt to note that there was change of power in State of Telangana in December, 2023 itself. Even then, 2nd respondent did not lodge complaint against petitioner and A.1 immediately thereafter. He has submitted representation for the first time, only on 19.06.2024 to the DGP. Thus, there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint against the petitioner and A.1.

39. With regard to the unexplained abnormal delay, the Apex Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N.rJ

22.T\ere has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to 'r (2022) 15 SCC t64 I 29 KI J Crl.P No.llt6 ot2025 sustain thc claims in the complaint. As held by this Court in Bijoy Singh r'. State of Bihar [Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar. (2002) 9 SCC 147 200i S(lC (Cri) 10931 , inordinate delay, if not reasonably explaincd. can be latal to the case of the prosecution. Thc relevant extr.rct from the judgment is extracted below : (SCo p. I 5j. par:r 7 t "7. ... Delav rvhcrever tbund is required to be explained by the prosccution. If thc delay is reasonably explained, no adverse infercncc can bc draun but lailure to explain the dclay would requirc thc ('ou11 to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itsell' as to rrhethcr any innocent person has been implicat,--d iu thc crimc or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanatron ol' thc dclay is not the requirement of law. It is alu'ars tbr thc prosccution to explain such a delay and if reasonablc. plausible and sullicient explanation is tendered, no adversc infcrence can bc drawn against it." 2i, In the prr'sent casc. lhc rcspondcnt has provided no explanation for the extreordinarl' delal, of more than four years between the initial site inspection. thc show-cause notice. and the complaint. In fact. the ahscnce ol'such an explanation on-ly prompts the Court to infer sonrc sinister rnotivc behind initiating the criminal proc(]edings.

24. Whilc inordinate delay in itsellmay not be ground for quashing of a criminal conrplaint. in such cases, unexplained inordinatc delay of such length must be taken into consideration a.,i a very crucial lactor as srounds lbr quashing a criminal complaint. I 30 KL,J Crl P No I186 o12025 I

40. In Mudavath Jyothi vs. The State of Telanganara on consideration ofthe fact that there was delay of69 days in lodging the complaint and also considering other facts, quashed proceedings against the petitioner therein 4 I . On consideration of the same, vide order dated 06.02.2025, this Court directed the investigating Officer not to arrest A.2 and lnvestlgation may go on.

42. Leamed Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating Officer has recorded the statement of 2nd respondent as L.W. l, Sri Chiluka Ganesh, (2nd respondent's wife's cousin) as L.W.2, Sri Pachimatla Shravan, nephew of 2"d respondent as L.W.3, Mangalarapu Sai @ Sai, Associate of 2nd respondent as L.W.4, Sri G.Chandrasekhar, brother of 2nd respondent as L.W.5, Sri Anasuri Veerababu, employee of 2nd respondent, AS L.W.6, Mittapalli Abhilash, brother of L.W.4, as L.W.7, Satish Kumar, employee of 2nd respondent AS L.W.8, Gaddameedi Karthik, Assistant of 2nd respondent as L.W.9, Mannepalli Sai Manoj, personal Assistant of 2nd respondent, as L.W. 10, Sri Kondagiri Dinesh, Friend of L.W.9 as L.W. 11, Khaleel Pasha, Inspector of Police, as L.W. 12, Ganagoni 't ln Crl. P-No.(,.If 7 of 20 l 9. dared O l.06.2O2 l of Telangana H igh Court J KL,J Crl P No 1386 of2025 Ramesh, employee of 2nr respondent, as L.W.l3, Giramaina Nagaraju, Office Boy and Driver of 2'r respondent, as L.W.l4, Bhoompalli Yadagiri, resident of Siddipet, as L.W. 15. Investigation is pending. He has fumished the copies of the said statements. Perused the same. None of the aforesaid witnesses stated about extortion, criminal breach of trust by a public serwant, criminal intimidation and computer related offences o1'R.2 b1, the petitioner and A. l.

43. As discussed supra, the complaint dated 01.12.2024 of 2nd respondent lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offbnces, there is abnormal delay in lodging the said complaint, 2nd respondent failed to explain the same. A case in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner herein/A.2 with regard to tapping of phone, he was arrested and in judicial custody lor about I 1 months. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Olficer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and others vide Ir.R.C.No.260 of 2024.

44. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel for the petitioners in both the criminal petitions submitted that 2nd respondent falsely implicated A.1 in the present case with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. There is no dispute that A.1 is a forrner Minister and Sitting MLA tiom Siddipet Constituency. 2'd respondent I )Z Kt-., Crl P. No 1386 of2025 contested from the said Constituency against A.l. There islolitical rivalry between A. I and 2nd respondent .

45. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.l5 and [6 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hazi Iqbal @ Bala through SPOA vs. State of UPls and the same are as follows: -

15. At this stage. we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accuscd comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manilestly lrivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengezulce, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FlR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. 'l'he complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FlR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FlR/complaint alone for the purposc o[ ascertaining whether.the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings. the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, il necd be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case bul is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in thc course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. [t is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FlRs assumes It Order datcd 08.08.202i rn Crl.A.No.li45 of2023 ofthe Apex Coun JJ KI-.J Crl.P No 1386 o1 2025 importance. thereb) attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out ol private or personal grudge as alleged.

16. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy' (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-.ludge Be'nch ol this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Coun can assess to quash an FIR. The Coun drew a fine distincrion bet$'een consideration of materials that wcrc tendered as dvidence and appreciation of such evidence' Only such material that manilestly fails to prove thc accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. I'he (lourt held:- "5. ...Authority of the courl exists tor advancement ofjustice and if any attempt is madc to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the courl to allor,'' any action which rvould result in injustice and prevent promotion ofjustice. In exercise ol the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding il it Iinds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proccedings would otherwise serve lhe ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by'the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a cornplaint is sought to bc quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is madc out even if thc allcgations are accepted in toto.

6. In R.P. Kapur r,. State of'Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised sonre categories of cascs whcrc inherent power can and should be cxercised to quash the proceedings : (AII{ p.869, para 6) (i) where it manilcstly appears that therc is a legal bar against the institution or continuance c.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first inlormation report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged: (iii) wherc the allcgations constitute an offence. but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last category. it is important to bear in mind the distinction bctween a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly incortsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidencc ri'hich. on appreciution' ma)' or may not 34 K I-.J Crl P. No lf86 of2025 support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation ol it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of thc trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression. or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in cxercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumsLances into considcration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any pcrson needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its suddcn death. . ..." (Emphasis supplied)

46. ln the tight of the aforesaid findings of the Apex Court, coming to the facts of case on hand, as discussed supra, the contents of the complaint dated 01.12.2024 lodged with the P.S.Panjagutta lacks ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. This Court scrutinized the entire material including the representation dated 19.06.2024 ol the petitioner submitted to DGP, his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and the affidavit filed in W.P.No.19502 of 2024. This Court of the view that the contents of the same lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. There is improved version in the complaint dated 01.12.2024by the 2nd respondent.

47. It is apt to note Apex Court in Bhajanlal supra, laid down the aforesaid parameters to quash the proceedings by High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. i5 KI- J (]rl P Nrr l3t6 of2025

48. In the light of the same and discussion supra, continuatton oftheproceedingsinCr.No.l205of2024againstthepetitioner herein/A.2 is an abuse of process of law and the same cannot go on'

49. Therefore. this criminal petition is allowed' The proceedings in Cr.No. 1205 of 2024 pending on the file of P S'Paniagutta, against the petitioner herein/A.2 alone, are quashed' Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending. il any, in these criminar Petition shalr stand closed //TRUE COPY// totJ!,BIA$PEts'B=,[i[ (} ECTION OFFICER The XIV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. TheStationHouseofficer,PanjaguttaPoliceStation,Hyderabad. Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana at Hyderabad [OUTI One CC to Sri Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao'' Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies I 2 J 4 5 \ To, o PSR HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 ORDER CRLP.No.1386 of 2025 (( z _) O ', 3TAI'6, oA aY. 2 0 \{\[n ?t25 (,r ). t D ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION. 9o