The High Court · 2025

2. Mr.Kara Janardhan Reddy., S/o tt{ohan Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ Business, Rl//o Konapur Village; Kothaguda Mandal, Mahabubbad Diskict, Telangana 506135 ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT 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 Quash the proceedings in FIR No. 1612025, daled O2lO3l2O25 at PS Kothaguda, Mahabubabad. District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 296 (b), 352 rlw 3(5) of BNS. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 grant stay all further proceedings against Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2 in FIR No.,L6l2025,,dated 02.03.2025 at PS Kothaguda, Mahabubabad District, registered for,thb offrences punishable under Section 296 (b).352 r/w 3(5) of BNS, investigation and filing of charge-sheet. in the interest of Justice, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Padma Rao G.S.Lakkaraju, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri D.Arun Kumar, {dditional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the State /Respondent No.1. a/ The Court made the following: ORDER: V THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3479 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled und^r Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in F.l.R.No.16 of 2025 of Kothaguda Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said crime. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 296 (bl,,352 r/u,.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nya5,a Sanhita,2023 (for short 'BNS').

2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 lodged a rcport before police stating that on O2.O3.'2O25 at about

2.00 hours, in whats ap group of their village great Konapur, thc accused Nos.1 and 2 uploaded a post from their mobile phones against him stating that'Vaadu Veedu". Having observed the said message in group, when he called accused No.2, over phone in the afternoon and questioned him w'hy they have uploaded the said message, then he scolded him in phone and insulted him by uploading messages against him stating '"Vaadu Veedu". Hence, requested to take action against the 2 accused. Basing on the complaint, the police registered a case against the accused for the above offences.

3. Heard Sri Padma Rao G.S.Lakkaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.Arun Kumar, iearned Ad<iitional public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent of the said offences. Respondent No-2 is Vitlage president, whereas, petrtioner No.l is in charge of Indira Kranti patham which is a politicat appointment made by the immediate previous Government. The respondent No.2 was pressurizing petitioner No. 1 to resign ald leave the villagc lor which petitioner No. 1 refused to do so. He further contended that Konapur village had a whalsap group to i communicate among Lhe villagers which also includes request, questioning somebody's action and reasonable criticism. There was an article in Andhra prabha in which it was questioning the action of Government of Telangana in not disbursing the bonus as promised by them. The said article was posted by petitioner No. I in whatsap group and certain villagers have supported petitioner No.1 and one of the group member abused petitioner No. 1 questioning the posting of such article, wherein petitioner 3 No. 1 replied in equal terms. Further, out of anxiety petitioner No.2 has posted in the group whether the message was posted questioning the posting of article is at the behest of respondent No.2 by saying Veedu" indicating the respondent No.2 and later advised petitioner No.l to stop messaging in the group. He further contended that offence under Section 296 (bl of BNS which addresses obscene acts and songs in public places. This section penalizes individuals who perform obscene acts in public or sing, recite, or utter obscene words near a public place, with punishment extending to imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both. Additionally, Section 352 of BNS pertains to acts intended to insult someone with the aim of provoking a breach o[ peace. It states that anyone who intentionally insults another person, provoking them to break public peace or commit another offense, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years, or fine, or both.

5. Learned counsel for ttre petitioners submits that these provisions do not apply to the present case, as the FIR does not contain any offense under these sections. The petitioners argue that the criminal proceedings against them are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to threaten Petitioner No. 1 to make him resign from his job. If respondent No.2 felt defamed by the acts of petitioners, he has to file defamatic,n case, but not the criminal case. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Though notice served on respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are allegations aElainst the petitioners, the case is at initial stage and it requires investigation. Therefore, zLt rhis stage, it cannot be said that the alleged offences do nol attract to the petitioners and requested the Court to dismiss thrs 1>etition.

8. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the allegations against the petitioners herein is that they used words "Vaadu Veedu" against the complainant, when he enquired abour. the same, A.2 scolded in abusive language and there is no obsccnity and as per the complaint, to attract Sections 296 (bl and 352 of BNS, there must be allegation to show that petitioners intentionaliy insulted by provoking them to cause breach of peace and the t' 5 allegations herein is only personal in nature and there is no intention to provoke the petitioners aiming breach of peace. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any of those offences. Therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Pelition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in F.l.R.No.16 of 2025 ot Kothaguda Police Station, Mahabubabad District are hereby quashcd. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd,- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR I &tou SE OFFICER

1. The Station House Officer, Kothaguda Police Station, Mahabubnagar District 2. One CC to Sri. Padma Rao G.S.Lakkaraju, Advocate [OPUCI 3. Snn CCdo Sri.Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, -1u6 Hyderabad [OUTI 4. Two CD Copies. PSK /gh Hr HIGH Court DATED:1 010612025 .. 9) .;\'o^' I :) L) '16 $ 3 si:P .3 ORDER CRLP.No.3479 of 2025 ALLOWED THE CRIM|NAL PET|TION +.d*e yr_ Ztfti