The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 in C.C No. 5 of 2025 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, at Manoranjan Court Complex, Hyderabad against the petitioners This Petitior coming on for hearing, upon perusing the N'lemorandum of Grounds of Crimrnia Petition and upon hearing the argumenls of Sri T SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY l\(lvocate for the Petitioner and the Public Pro:,ecutor (TG) on behalf of the R,=sporrdent No. '1 and None appeared for the Respc ndent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER i I i I i I I i i i i i i I i I t I : i I I I I HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN PETITION No.3229 oF 202s ORDER On 05.03.2025 this Courl ordered notibe to respondent No.2 and personal notice was also permitted. In compliance with the said order, leamed counsel for the petitioner has iiled memo vide U.S.R.No.33815 of 2025 dated 25.03.2025 along with rerumed ctrver with an endorsement ,,No such person in this address,,. Therefore, this Court directed the investigating officer in Crime No.280 of2017 to serve notice on the 2nd respondent and file proof of Serwice. On 04.04.2025 leamed Additional public prosecutor informed this Courl that the investigating officer in the subject crime went to the residence of respondent No.2 to serye notice in compliance with the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, but the door was locked. On enquiry, he came to know that respondent No.2 was in Pondicherry. He sought time to serve notice personally.

2. The Sub-Inspector of police, Nizamabad Rural police Station, has filed an affidavit stating that pursuant to the letter received I I l I i I I d 2 KL,J Crl P No.32)\' rt'2025 from the Publlc ['rosecutor's Office on 2'7 '03 '2025' hc rnale prone calls to resF'|orlrlent No'2 on 2'7 '03'2025 and finally ilt 05:2ll PM' respondent'\'r -l attended the phone call and informed hiLr ttrat he is out of state t rottg with his family and he is at PudtrcheLrl on his personal ',v':rk 'lhe Sub-Inspector of Police inforlr-red abo Lrt the pendency of r.hr: Present criminal petition and posting of t:tc c rse on 'l'he Sub-lnspector of Police has also t:nquired about the arrival o" r"I tespondent to Nizamabad 2nd responcl:n1 rlid not -l'herefore' the Sub-Inspector of Police has give proper rrrlri\vcr' deputed Assisr.i tit Sub-Inspector of Police and P'C No 7l(' to the house of 2n'r r"spondent situated at Mubarak Nagar' )"liza nabad' but the doctl v' t, locked' He has also filed screenshot ol- whalsapp respondent. Thus despite kno'vlccgc' 2nd extract sonl t) 2

04.04.2025. respondetit d rd 'rot enter appearance'

3.llearilNlr,f,srujanKumarReddy,leamedCoLrnst-]lorthe or.r tchalf of petitionc' rrcl learned Public Prosecutor appearlng respondenr rlo I - State' 4. Tlte p:r'sent Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of ttre Bharatit'r Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for S)rort "Ill'lSS") to 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of2025 quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First class for Excise cases, Manoranjan Court Complex, at Nampally, Hyderabad. petitioner herein is accused No. I in the said C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 504 and 506 ofIpC.

5. On the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent dated Og.LO.2OI7 police Nizamabad Rural have registered a case in crirne No.2g0 of 2017 on 17.10.2017 against the petitioner herein. As per the said complaint, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are as follows: (i) He was working as Telangana Region DGM in Venkatasai Entertainment private Limited. Media Vision, Kesix, Roshan News Channels of the said organization are running under his supervision. The said Channels are most popular local channels in Nizamabad District. r (ii) Unable to digest their organization development day by day, the petitioner herein along with Kanchetty Gangadhar of Mittapalli, Darpalli Sarpanch Gangadhar and others prepared a wrong message to be sent on Whatsapp to give a wrong signal to 4 Crt t' \:o .t22 ) AL J ' f )0) 5 the public to t I rtse harm to their organization' persoLrall" the complainanr a,rtl lris Lrncle who is Sri Bajireddy Govardhrtn' l'zllA' Nizamabad RLrr-t (iii) ('r 0'1 .lO.2Ol7 (Saturday)' in Whatsapp (ir oups' -l-R.S lvlP Group, TRS Party Nizamabad Ciroup an'J also especially various Rt:c1lr '.iroups under the caption "Nizamat'ail Rural Bajiredd,v (,oi' irdhan & Vaari Alludu Pintu Intinti \ rasool Rajakeeyarn' prblicizing Rural MLA Bajireddy (iovardhan and respondenl l'{..r. I herein threatened the Electronic \4eclia ( twners (MSOs) o i .h,-' .ural constituency by making falsi: postin ls and threatening '.lrr: Media Managements (MSO) to pay Rs'3{)' Rs'20 per month lcrrvards rowdy Mamool from each house in the constituencl tt the Rural MLA Bajireddy and responcler t No'2 herein (ir,) -l lrr:', arc harassing him mentally by taking thcir names and also cht'r ting by misleading the public to damagc their business (v) ()n {)').10.2017, the petitioner herein' his fo low:r's' Dr' Sl.radulla o i l-- ippalli, Rajireddyi of Keshapur village anr I others ! I I i 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of2025 conducting a meeting with journarists at R&B (iuest House and made false accusations against respondent No.2 and his uncle Bajireddy Govardhan and Bajireddy Jagan.

6. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and 5 others. During the course of investigation, investigating officer recorded the statement of 2nd respondent as LW-I, Sri Suram Harish Kumar as LW_2. 2nd respondent has reiterated the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner herein as alleged in the complaint dated 09.10.2017. LW-2 also stated in the very same lines of LW_ I .

7. Leamed Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise cases, Hyderabad, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner rrerein and others vide order dated

16.10.2017.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that the contents of complaint dated 09. 10.2 017 and statements of LW-l and LW-2 recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 ofCr.P.C lack the ingredients ofSections 504 and 506 of IPC. i 'I I I I t 6 KL '.1 Crl P. it'o t22),'[2D5 In thc lLg)r - ol the said submission' it is relevant to not r that 9. Section 503 of lI'r.l deals with 'criminal intimidation' and the same is extractccl al' l t clcr' "503. V''r'r r''er threatens another with any injury to hi ; per 'rttl' repurz tioIl . r property, or to the person or reputation ol' anY one in uhon thr'. person is interested' with intent to cause alann tr) that pcrs" l i)r to catEe that person to do any act which he is not lcgiLll', lror'rnd to do, or to omit to do any act &hich thrLt person i:' I:ilally entitled to do' as the means of avoidinp the exccttti lr ( I sLlch th-reat' commits criminal intimidation "

10. Section 50't o1'IPC deats with 'intentional insult wirh irrtent to provoke hrerlt:ll of the peace' and the same is extracted ai un ler: "504. ',\'llro'cr intentionally insults' and thereby give: pro\o(atr('r to any person, intending or knowing it to be'ikt'l) th:rt sucir lr Lrvocation will cause him to break the pulllic J'eaoe or lo ( oinnit any other offence' shall be punished impris,rttnt,rtrt of either description 6ot n lsnn r"hicli extr'n(l .) '\(, \'ears! or with hne, or with both " i 1. Scc:tior' .i06 of lI'C deals with 'punishment lbr criminal intimidatitln lrlcl the same is extracted as under: "506. ',\'lLrrc-r'cr oommits the offence of criminal intirnilatio n shall :,: 1r nished with imprisonment of either description for a tenn '\ l i :1r t.nay extend to two years, or with fine' or rvittr botlr; I i 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of 2025 If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc _ and if the tkeat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offenoe punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.,,

12. To attract offence under Section 504 ofIpC, there should be intention to insult thereby which cause provocation to any person intending or knowing it to likely such provocation will cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In the present case, even if the allegations made by the 2,d respondent in the complaint dated 09.10.2017 are considered to be true, the same are lacking the ingredients for the offence under Section 504 of IPC

13. It is also apt to note that as per the complaint of respondent No.2, the alleged incident was on 07.10.2017, respondent No.2 lodged complaint with police on Og.lO.2Ol7 and the police, p.S. Nizamabad has registered the subject crime only on 17.10.2017. I'here is no explanation for the said delay. : i I I i : I I I I , i I ! I' I 8 KL,J Cr|P.Nt.3.2tof2025 t4 In Hazi Iqhal @ Bala through SPOA vs' Statc of Ullr, the Hon'ble Srtpr,-'nt,: Court held as under:

15. ,4.t tl i. st.rge. we would like to observe something imfonarlt' Whencr':, ,,r accused comes before the Court invoking ei hel lhe under Section 482 of the Q6de of C rinrilral inierent rt,u.'ers ProccritLrc t!) I'C) or extraordinary jurisdiction uhder Article 226 of the Constrr Liirxi to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings cprastred essentralll orr lhe ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivok,us, r ,r veratious or instituted with the ulterior mor ir''-' br wreak.rg \ rngcanceJ then in such circumstances the (loufi orre'; a duty t,r or,l into the FiR with care and a little more clost:ly \Ve say so b,:r'al se once the complainant decides to proceed agtinst rhe accusr'tl r.':t r an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vcngetul le, etc.. then h: u'ould ensure that the Flfucomplaint is very v ell drafic,l ,r i 1 all the necessary pleadings. The complainan uoLtld ensux t rirl lre ave rments made in the FlR/complaint llre srlch t'mt they rliscLo:t the necessary ingredients to constitute the allel,ed -r'h,l.clbre, it will not be just enough for the Court lo lr''ok offence. into tlrc :r', -'lnents made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purp rse of asccr.erin Iig ivhether the necessary ingredients to constjtute the alleged oilirrrc,-' are disclosed or not. In frivolous or \'()xati )us proceerl'nlrs, lhe Court owcs a duty to look into many ot]er attencing ci.rrumstances emerging from the record of ''he citse o ver aird ab()\c tlle averments and, if need be, with due care rnd circurtsl.r'-',: li,rn try to read in bctween the lines. I h: Clourt while exercising its jurisdiction uder Seq ion 482 ,r I t,r, (I PC'or Article 226 of the Constitution need no rcsl:ict itself,,rrlr' () the stage of a case but is empowered to tlke into account Jrc overall circumstances leading', ti) initiatio'r relistration of the case as well as the materials colle< ted in the c: rr:t of investigation. Take for instance thc oase on ilzrnd Multipl,: t lF.s have been registered over a period of time It i; in the b,icilir-, t nd of such circumstances the registration of rnlrltiple FIRs assrr r es importance, thereby attracting the issue of r''real ing veng(,arr( a ,) rt ol private or personal grudge as alleged. radesh v. Golco nda Linga Sr v-amr , (2('04) 16. Lr State ,rf Andhra P 6 SC(l :.1:. a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborate(l on the typcs o'|',lr.1erials the High Court can assess to quash an I:IR. fhe Coufl rlr,-'ir a fine distinction between consideration of matet ials that rve't tcndered as evidence and appreciation of such evideltce. ' Ordcr dated 08.( s .l t ll in Crl.A.No.2345 ot2023 of the Apex Coufi I -.] \ \ 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.3229 of2025 Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court hetd:- "5. ...Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made 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 court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of.justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justifred to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 6. In R.P. Kapur v. State ofPunjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri L.l 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p.869, para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations 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 between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations madc, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not 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 of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument l0 KL,J O.l P lt 3219 of 2025 hand:..1 t''''er to an accused to short-circuit a proseoutiotr ant bring ab,rur {s sudden death....." (Emphasis supplied)

15. In th,: light of the aforesaid discussion and the prirrciple laid down b1 tl'rc {pex Court, coming to the case on han(1, thr: contents of cornpl;rint datcd 09.10.2017 and statements oi-LV/-l irnd LW-2 lack thc irsr:dients of the aforesaid offences. There is un explained odging the complaint and registratic n of crime. Therefore, c:ntinuation of the proceedings against the petitioner herein in ( (l No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of Specir,.l Judicial Magislrat: ,rl First Class for Excise Cases, HyderablLcl is an abuse of process :r1 larv and thc same are liable to be quashe,1.

16. Thr. lrlcsent Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed quashino. Lh,: ltroceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2025 pending c,n the file of Spccia I J :cl jcial Magistrate of First Class Ibr }ixcir.ie Cases, Hyderatra,l asainst the petitioner herein - accused No.l al,)ne. As :r r;r:,quel thereto, misccllaneous petitions, if any pending in the crirrr jniLJ petition Stand,.ekxed. SiD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ \ECIIoN oFFICER To, @, 'l . The ll Addl iucicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad. 2. The Statior, !louse Officer, Nizamabad Rural Police Station, N zamabad Dist 3. One CCr:o Slll T SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]I 4. Two CCs to tr: Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangz na at Hyderabad

5. Two CD Jopies HIGH COIJRT' DATED: 1014412025 ORDER CRLP.No.3229 of 2025 -!-= == -- 1i,,i S I, t16 ( + 3 lt ,.LiN 2U * 1)a ,3r) rt t o ..--.;- $t" (.') ,\\ ALLOWINGi .I-HE CRIMINAL PETITION I I I I i i i i I I I I I I