The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bankalal Mandhani, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Ms. V. Shruti, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I I It I THE; HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No -3141 of 2()25l ORDIR: The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, sreeking to quash c.c.No.1 1600 of 2024 on the file of the : learned XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally Court, registered for the offence punishable under Section 5O9 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.CJ and quash the same. 4 ;

2. I ttr" petitioner herein is the sole accused and the respondent No.2 herein is the complainant before the trial Court. For,the s,ake of convenience hereinafter parties are referred to as the accusred and the complainant.

3. The, brief facts of the case are that the police Shahinayathgunj on 28.06.2024 at 19:00 hours received an English u'ritten complaint from the complainant stating that his brother Mr.Ravi Kumar Vora/accusccl has installed three cameras inside the house in which two cameras are directly facing to his door. He: has two daughters and the cameras installed are capturing all the movements. The rvay from '*'ashroom to his room is c,rvering in that camera. His u'ife and daughters are 2 facing inconvenience and there is arways a fear that they are being captured' He has a shop at ground floor and whenever his wife and daughter have to come down, they are forced to change rptured in their nightwear or any other clothes causlng great inconvenience and fear inside the house. Due to the CCTV cameras his wife and daughter are riving in fear inside the house as tJreir privary is being affected. 4' As per the contents of the compraint, LW-g-Inspector of Police registered a case in crime No.25 r/2024 dated 2g.06.2024, under Section SO9 IpC and took up investigation. 5' Heard learned cou.ser appearing for the petitioner/accused and sri E.Ganesh, rearned Assistant pubric prosecutor for respondent No-l-statc ancr Ms.v.shruti, Iearned counsel aPPearing for respondent No.2. perused 6. the record. appearing Iearned counscl appearing fcrr the pefitioner would submit: that respondent No.2 l<.rdged the compraint to arm-twist the petitioner to settle the Civil dispure urde O.S.N o.3O6of 2olion the IiIe of the learned tI Additional Chief Judge, Cif Hvderabad. rhe said suir was setrred ;.":;,:i::""rt nrse decree was 1 3 also passed on 2O.OL.2O25. Respondent No.2 is a litigant and indulgesr in nuisance of calling names and fighting on petty matters and therefore to avoid serious false allegations, the CCTV cameras are installed which in any manner do not intrude alleged privacy cf respondent No.2 or his family. The cognizance of the offence is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and hence the Same desr:rves to be set-aside. If the prosecution is allowed to be continuedonsuchfrivolouscomplaintwhichdoesnotmakeout any offence it would be nothing but abuse o[ process of the Court and would result serious loss and damage to the reputation of petitioner.Thefrivolousandvexatiouscomplaintrvasfiledwith ill-motive as such it deserves to be quashed' 7. By fiiing counter' learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No'2 is a simplc businessman who has a shop at ground floor' and who is busy rvith his r'r'ork and take crere of his family being the onlv earning person' The petitioner,\vho'withallhisillegalmotive'habituatt:cto[harassing respondentNo'2andhisfamrlYmembersby'allmeanspossible' has fired a compraint with false a[egations- Learnc'd c.unsel furthersubmittedthatifthecomplaintagainstthepetitioneris 4 -', quashed, then respondent No.2 and his family members would put to great hardship and great injustice. There are propef evidences against the petitioner and the charges are properly framed and the same shall be decided onty after a full-fledged trail and not at this stage. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present criminal petition.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State would submit that unless and until full-fledged trial is conducted by examining the evidence and facts before it, the truth will not be elicited. Hence seeks to dismiss this criminal petition. g. The present case is arising out o[ a complaint that CCTV carneras have been installeci by the petitioner causing inconvenience and disruption to the privacy of the family members of respondent No.2. Accr.rrdingl-v, the crime against the petitbner under Section 509 of thc Indian Penal code was registered. Section 5O9 of Indiar-r Pcnai Code reads as under: "5O9. Word. aesate or o.ct intend.ed. to irtsult tlte modestu of a woman-wTtoeuer, itcnding to insult the modesty of ang tDoman, utters arul tuords, mokes ang sound or gesture, or exhibits ang object, intendiltg thctt such word or sound slw)l fu heard, or that such qesture or otlect shall be seen' bg such i I I I I I I I T I I r 5i I I ? I I t . ;

1. i .. : i i ,/ I I ! i: l! It I I I I : t; , i I I i I , {i ; I i ; i i i ; i i : I , 5 woman, or intrudes upon tlrc priuaq of such u)oman, [shall be pr,Lnished with simple imprisonment for a term uthich mag ertend to three Aears, qnd also utithftnel" lO. TlLe case originates from the CCTV cameras capturing the objects ernd movements of respondent No.2/complainant and his family nrembers. Firstly, as seen from the charge sheet, the statemerts have been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and no crypL.c evidence has been. collected neither footage of CCTV camera tLas been obtained against the petitioner/accused by the police noi: the said CCTV cameras have been placed as a material evidence before the criminal Court, which are vital evidence in conducting trail. Secondly, there was a case registered against respondent No.2 in Crime No.4O3 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, w'here the learneC XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad has fiound respondent No.2 not guilty for the said ol'fenccs and accordingl'y, acquitted him in C.C.No.19 of 2016. Thirdlv, there are family,lisputes between the parties, resulting in filing the Civil cases. It ir; under these circumstances, conducting of trial in thc absence of any cryptic evidence is an abuse of process of lau'. 6

11. The Honble Apex Court in the matter of Sta,te oJ ltraryana Vs. Bt:rrJanla! held as follows; "The follouting categories of c@ses can be stated by wag of itlustratbn wlrcrein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent pou)ers und.er Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercbed bg the High Court either to preuent abuse of the process of ang aurt or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, tlwugh it mag twt be possible to lay down ang preci,se, clearlg deftned and suffrcientlg clnnnelized and. inJlexibte guidelines or rtgid formulae and to giue an exhaustiue list of myriad kinds of cltses uherein such power should be exercised: (1) where tlrc allegations made in the first information report or the amplaint, euen if theg are taken at their face ualue and. arepted in tlrcir enttretg do not prima facie constitute any offene or malse out a case against the accused.. (2) wlrcrg tle attegatto^.s in the first information report and. oth.er materials, tf anA, a@ompanging the FIR do not dbclose a cognizable offene, justifging cin inuestigation bg police olfierc under *ctbn 156 oJ.the Cod.e except und"er an ord.er of a Magbtrate uithin the puruiew of Section I SS (2) of the (3) where *e uncontrouerted. aregatiotts ntade irt the FIR or compraint and ttrc euid.ence corectecT irt support of the sarne d.o not disclose fite commbsion of any ofJbnce and. ntake out a case against the acqrced. (4) wrere' *e attegation^s in the FIR do rrct constitute a cogniable offene but constitute oril1.1 a non_cognizable Code. 'tgg2SqFEmentary (t) scc 33s I 7 offence, no inuestigation is permitted bg a police officer without an order of a Magistrate a,s ahtemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or omplaint are so absurd tnd inherentlg improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can euer reach a iust anclusion that there is sufftcieni ground. for proceeding against the aeused' (6) Wheret there b an express legal bar engmfied in ang of the prouision,; of the Code or the a n'erned Ad (under uthich a ciminal proceeding is instituted) to tle instittttion and continuance of the proeedings and/or uhere there is a specific prouision in the Code or tle oncemed Act' prouiding efficacious' redress for tle grievance of th'e aggrieued party' (7) Where a ciminal proceeding is mnnifestlg attended uith mala frde and/ or where the proceeding is maliciouslg instituted ,,ith an ulterior mottue for urealcing uengeance on the accused' and' with a uieut to spite lum due to pnuate and personal gntdge'"

12. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned counselanduponperusingthematerialavailableonrecordand the judgment passed by the Hon'b1e Apex Court in the matter of State of Harya'ra Vs' Bhajanlal (supra) is of the opinion that that t I nocrypticevic.cncehasbeencollected,neitherfootageofCCTV camera has been obtained by the police nor the said CCTV criminal court, which are vital evidence-il toldlcting trail' ln CamerashavebeenplacedaSarnaterialevidencebeforethe I ) ) i I i ! I I I ! 8 the absence of any specific evidence against the petitioner, it would be unjust to force tl.e petitioner to go through the tribulations of the trial. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings in so far as petitioner/accused is concerned in C.C.No.1 1600 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally Court, Hyderabad arising out of Crirne No.25 L of 2024 on the lile i . o[ Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad.

13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed- Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI ANT /ffRUE COPY/ N OFFICER To,

1. The XVI Additional Chief Jttdicial Magistrate Court, Nampally Court, Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Shahinayathgunj Police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. V. Shruti, Advocate {OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies DL/Sa t4* HIGH COURT DATED:26l,1112025 ORDER CRLP.No.3141 ot 2O25 NE C ? I JAt'l 2026 t) 'u ALLOWING THE GRIMINAL PETITION JV'