The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Through P.S.Raidurgam, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT

2. Sri. Kunta Mamatha, W/o Ramishetty Sunil, Age. Major, Occu: Advocate, Rlio.Flat No.301, Cloud 9 Pride Apartments, Panchavati Colony, Road No.13, Manikonda. ...RESPONDENT/DE.FACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memordndum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the proceedings in STC.No. 97 of 2023 on the file of Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar against the Petitioners/ Accused No.'1 and 2. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of 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 all further proceedings irr STC. No. 97 of 2023 on the file of court of the Xlll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar against the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2, including the appearance of Petitioners/Accused No.land 2, pending disposal of main criminal petition and to pass This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t te Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argum,: rts of Sri Siripuram Kaumud ,Advocate for the Petitioners and and Sri M. Ram r ;handra Reddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Responrl rnt No.1 and Sri K. Ravinder Reddy Pratap Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent I o.2 The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2391 of 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is flled by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.T.C.No.97 of 2023 on the file of Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar registered for the offences under sections 323 and 504 of lndian Penal Code.

2. Heard Mr.Siripuram Kaumud, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel representing Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that he intends to file counter. No counter was filed even though the counsel took adjournment for filing counter long time back and the matter is listed under the caption 'for orders' today. Hence this Court heard Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of respondent No.2 Perused the record. 2

3. Learned counsel for petitioners s; rbmitted that the ingredients of the offences are not made ()r t. As per the complaint, the incident was witnessed by the ivatchman of the apartment by name Ramana who is a crucia witness, but he has not been examined by the police and t re witnesses cited are complainant and her daughter and er(;ept them no other eye witnesses were examined. The alle,1 rtion against the petitioners is that they shouted in un-larliamentary language at the door step of the complainant s house. lt is further submitted that the allegations do not c tnstitute the offence under section 504 of lPC, as there was I o intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of pea<;, r caused to accused, so also the charge under section 323 tf IPC is not made out, as there is no instance of voluntarili' :ausing hurt to the de facto complainant and if so, to prove t te same, no medical officer was examined

4. He placed reliance on a decision hel I by Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.V.Ram Kumar y. Sfafe cti Telangana 3 and another 1, wherein in paras 25, 26, 27 and 2g it was held as under- "25. Needless to say, that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness . or insolence does not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 lpC. Furthermore, it would be immaterial that the person who has been insulted and provoked did not actually break the peace or commit any offence.

26. Section 504 IPC consists of two parts. Firsfly, the acfus reus - being the intentional insult which gives rise to the provocation. Secondly, the mens rea i.e. the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that such intentional provocation is likely to cause the person insulted to break public peace or commit any other offence. The animus nocendi in Section 504 lpC is that the accused should "intentionally insult,, the other person with the intention or knowledge that the provocation caused by such insult is llkely to result in the commission of breach of public peace or any other offence by the person who has been so insulted. The offence is said to be complete once the accused person makes "intentional insult" with the aforesaid mens rea. Hence, intention or knowledge on the part of the accused person that his actions of making "intentional insult" have the potential to provoke the person insulted is srne qua non forthe commission of the offence under Section 504 lPC.

27. The natural corollary of the above discussion is that if the accused does not intend to give provocation, the offence is not made out. An insult without an "intention to insult" is not punishable under Section 504 lPC. Further, "intentional rnsulf' must be of such a degree that it has the potential to provoke a reasonable '(2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 47s I 4 person to break the public peace or to comr rit any other offence.

29. The test to be applied to deterrine if the intentional insult made by the accused is ;ufficient to cause provocation is that of a reasonable tr erson i.e. if the insult is sufficient to provoke any reaso 1 tble person to break peace or commit any other offenr: r, only then the accused will be liable for the offence u^ ier Section 504 tPC." Hence prays to quash the proceedings; against the petitioners

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutc,t for the State submitted that this is not a fit case to quash th': proceedings against the accused persons and prayed tc dismiss this Criminal Petition 6 On perusal of the charge sheet, it is evident that as per the complaint, the crucial witness who is vatchman of the apartment has not been examined and the r gredients of the offences are not made out. Further it is appa'ent that the accused No.2 herein lodged a complaint upon the complainant and her husband on 11.12.2022, ou, ng to vyhich ,.'$!r€y bore grudge upon the petitioners anc lodged a suDsequent FIR in the present crime on 11.01 .2123 without :l';1 t 5 any basis and only to harass the petitioner. Hence no case is made out against the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.C.No.97 of 2023 on the file of Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ... I T i.'fltYt?t't?Rlx //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER ";m'*trum**j*;ii***l*"" HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.2391 ot 2024 ,,^ r-\. 'r o,\ i rri;.i, ffi ( i t\ "I* - ^.,rl:il ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (A 5 \-l @