Hyderabad High Court · 2025

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 quash the proceedings in STC.No-01 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 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 including personal appearance of the petitioner in STC.No. 01 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir, pending quash petition- This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y Sai Sankalp, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. i and of Sri CH Shiva Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER TITI', IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREEN{.,/AS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3776 ot2022 ORDER 'lhis ,lrirninal Petitior.r has been filed seek 'l to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.01 of 2022 on the file ,:1 the Principal Judicial F-irst Class Magistrate at Bhongir, where in the petitioner rvas arraycd as accused, for the offences punishablr) under Section 506 of the Indian Pcnal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC't

2. -['he case of the prosecution in brief is thar cn 09.08.2021, respondent l\,1o"2/ de-tacto complainant lodged a cl n,plaint against the petitioner. alleging that the petitioner, bt: ng a public representative, took some youngsters to his 'a'rnhouse and assaulted them along r.r,ith his henchmen. The s:r C incident rvas recorded antl the video footage was got viral on scr:ir ,l media. As a rcsult, the rle-f-acto complainant lodged a complal 1t before the I{uman Rir3hts Commission (HRC), which in urn directcd respondent \o.2 to file a complaint before the corcemecl police authorities. Accordingly, a complaint was lod1.e:l before the concemed Superintendent of Police. While the mett,ir stood thus, on 31.07.21)21, the petitioner aggrieved by tfe complaint, 2 1 telephoned the complainant's brother and issued a waming, challenging his social status. Based on the above allegations, the Investigating Officer conducted an invcstigation and filed a final reporl before the Principal Judicial F-irst Class Magistrate, Bhongir. The said Court took cognizance of the matter and numbered the case as S.T.C.No.01 of 2022.

3. When this matter came up for consideration on 10.10.2025, there was no representation for respondent No.2 either in physical mode or virlual mode. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted to 15.10.2025. Today also, there is no representation for respondent No.2 either in physical mode or virtual mode. This Court is not having any option except to proceed ivith the matter on

4. Heard Mr.Y.Sai Sankalp, leamed counsel for petitioner and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l .

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been lalsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that there is no speciflc aliegation in the complaint that the petitit ner attempted to cause injr"rrv or han-n to respondent No.2/de-flact. t omplainant at any point o1'tirne. fhcre forc, the of'fence uuder Sc i:t on 509 of the IPC is also rrot attracted against the petitioner. IIe lirr her submitted that the Invcstigating Officer, without propcrly ,: rnducting the investigation. trled final report, even without collt',:t ng telephonic evidence

6. In suprporl of his contentions, learned counse I r,:[ied upon the prirrciple laid dorvn by the Hon'ble Supreme (-o srl in Manik Tuneja antl another v. State of Karnutaka and anotl'er1 . '7 . Per conf ra, lcarned Assistant Public Prost::r tor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against r il i petitioner to attract the ngreciients of Section 506 of the lF'(.). Whether the petitioner has con-rmitted the oflence or not has to L,e revealed after full fledged trial. Hcnce, the petitioner is not r:n:itled to seek quashment of proceedings in S.'|.C.No.01 of 2022.

8. Having considered the rival submissionri rnade by the respective parties and after perusal of the mater a available on I i:c rs; z scc rz: w 4 record, including the complaint and the charge sheet, it reveals that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner that he attcnrptcd to cause injury to respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. Thc record further discloses that the only allegation levelled against t[.re petitioner is that he made a telephone call to the brotl.rcr ol respondent No.2, namely Bojja Prem Kumar, and issued a waruing. However, the Investigating Officer neither seized nor collected any telephonic conversation or call data records between the petitioner and tlie brother of respondent No. 2. In Column No. I0 of the charge sheet, which pertains to the details of properties, articles, or documents seized or recovered during thc investigation and relied upon, the Investigating Officer has mentioned'Nil'.

9. ln Manik Taneju's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that an ofl'ence under Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC requires a clear threat of injury to the person, reputation or property of the complainant, made with the intention to cause alarm or to compel the complainant to do an act he is not legally bound to do or to forebear from doing an act he is legally entitled to do. lt further held that mere abusive or disparaging words, 5 absent any intention to cause alann, do t'tot constittt e "criminal intimidation" artd that such intention must be et'i-i: tt fiom the material on recotd. On the facts of that case, the Ho' 1.,le Supreme Court firund that the allcgations, including cer1rrir comments postcd on Facc book, did r.rot retlcct any intention on .l': part of the accused to cattse alatrn or obstruct the cornplainant irr t ie discharge of his duties, antl theretbre thc essential ingredients t'f Section 503 of thc IPC werc not satisfled.

10. Applying the above principle to the preset ca:''r, it is evident that the allegations made in the complaint do rr 'rt satisty the essential ingr,:dients of the off-ences under Sections -.() l and 506 of the IPC- Erc:pt tbr a vagLre allegation that the peliti rner made a phone call ard issued a warning, there is no materii l on record to show that an',, threat'uvas made with an intention to ':: use alarm to the de-lacto complainant or to compel her or her' lrmily to act against theil rvill. 'I-he charge sheet also re'' -'irls that the Investigating Officer has not retrieved any calI data, audio recording, ot other evidence during the course of nvestigation' Hence, mere allegation of a phone call without proo i c f intention to cause alanrL does not constitute the offencr: of crimiaal rlE wi*ffiEu \l .'' -- -c"*-i"* ' '!:'i \-, 6 intinridation, and continuation ol proceedings against the petitioner would arnount to abuse ol process of law. I I . For thc lorcgoing reasons as well as the principle laid dor.ur by the Hon'ble Suprerne Clourt in Monik Taneja's cose (supru), this Courl is of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings against the petit ioner/accused in S.T.C.No.0l ol 2022 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir, is clearly an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, rvhile exercising its .iurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered view that the said proceedings are liable to be quashed, and accordingly quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed Pending rniscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOMINA MEHAR ASSISTANT REGISTRARd SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir 2. The station House Officer,Bhongir Rural Police Station, yadadri Bhongir 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri Y Sai Sankalp, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri CH Shiva Krishna, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) ADK HIGH COURT DATED:1611012025 ORDER CRLP.No.3776 of 2022 R Tii o t ;"{ c t 0 7 ?0h z * .S;7 * ALLOWING THE CRLP i ' al \ , ll I !,, I --''.1 ]D 1C