The High Court · 2025

...RESPONOENT'DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P C'' prayino that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'#'"ict"i"u"t ti cii"'r pttition' the High Court may i c'r'r9. 19^8^9. of 2022' on the file of the be oleased to quash "n"'gl'i"?"' ildffiiil;niJtrlie of rirst Li"tisp"ti'r Mobile PCR)' at Karimnasar' r.A. NO: 1 oF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr'P'C- ' prayino that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandr*"'ot*6fuinO-r oi Ciiniin.i Pttition, the High Court may ,i,"i,,,ii,l.r"il"e.aings, including appearance of the be oteased to stay " Magistrate of oetiiioner/Accused in c c'' No i;;b ;i zozz' oi the file of Ei,ri6ir.. ispecial Mobile PCR)' at Karimnagar' -Judicial r.A. NO: 30F 2023 Between: X,11"J'fl#3',fl '*:Ui1lX,P.1:"1:it?:J;$%?,'8,If, i"t"g?i-:1353i133*^ ...PETITIONER'2ND RESPONDENT v AND 1 2 Redapaka Raia Bhuoal. S/o Devaiah, Age.2g years, Oc.::Student, R/o. H. No. 2- j05. sc cotony K;;"i;h;i;; iil"i{' jitr,srd Janagam Diskict. Mandat, Jlg j!119 of-Tetangana, through.S.H O , p S. Karimnasar I _ Town, Kanmnagar District. Reoresented by puUtic prosecuioil Higf., Court at Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr. p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dt. 14-09-2023 granted in rA No.1 of 2023 in CRL.P.No.554O of ZOZ3, with costs. This Pe Grounds of Sri K. VENU Assistant Publ BALA MURALI tition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Criminal Peiition and upon hearing the: arguments of MADHAV, Advocate for the Smt. S.Madhavi petitioner and the ic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of SRI y. , Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5540 OF 2023 OR DER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner- accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1989 of 2022 on the flle of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile PCR) at Karimnagar (for short 'the learned trial Court')' registered for the offences under Sections 354-4' 354-D' 506 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')'

02. Heard Sri K'Venumadhav' learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Smt S'tvladhavi' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No'1 as well as Sri Bala tVlurali Y' learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No'2 Perused the record'

03. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 is the victim and the complainant The petitioner-accused is stated to be a friend of LW2' who is the nraternal uncle of respondent No 2' lt is alleged that the petitioner-accused obtained the phone number of 2 respondent No.2 under the pretext of study purposes, and thereafter borrowed a certain amount of money from her. Subsequenfly, upon learning that the marriage of respondent No.2 had been arranged with LW2, the petitioner-accused allegedly began demanding further money from her by threatening to disclose their prior interactions to her family members. ln response to the said threats, respondent No.2 travelled to Hyderabad to meet the petitioner-accused, during which he is aller;ed to have misbehaved with her and reiterated his demand for money, which she refused. lt is further alleged that the petitioner_ accused subsequenfly instiiled. suspicion in the mind of LW2 regarding respondent No.2. Thus, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint seeking neces,sary action against the petitioner_accused.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences. The allegations levelled in the charge sheet are false and baseless. The respondent No.2 has been working as the Sub-lnspector of police and with an intention to harass the petitioner_accused, filed the present /,\ 3 Bhaian case only with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner-accused on private and personal grudge' The contents of the FIR or charge sheet do not disclose the necessary and essential ingredients required to constitute the offences under Sections 354-A' 354-D' 5OO of the IPC' With the above submissions' learned counsel for the the quashment of petitioner-accused while praying for decision of the criminal proceedings relied upon a Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v' Lall wherein it was held at Paragraph No l08 that: "tn the backdrop of the interpretation of the vaious relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the ptinciples of law- enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra- ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Ciminat Procedure, the fotlowing categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power coutd be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Couft or oi"*i"" to secure the ends of iustice' though it may not be posslb/e to tay down any precise' clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflex'ible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such Power should be exercised: (l) where the allegations made in the First -tnformation Repoft or the complaint, even if 1 1sgo LawSuit(SC) 701 1 l 4 tley are taken at their face value and accepted ! mei.entirety do not prima facie const,itute any offence or make out a case against lhe accused; 9 whye _the altegations in the l:rrst lnlormation Repon and other materials. if trtty. accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclos:e'a offence, iustifying an investisarion i?.n:,:,?!h Dy pottce officers under Section 156fi);l tlte Co.de except under an order of a Uigi"tr:at" wthin the purview of Section 1 SS(2) of :he Code; ,,the. (!) where the uncontrovefted allegations m,ade FtR or 'complaint and the evideitce collected in supporl of the same Ao ,,r.,t drsc/ose the commission of any off"n"u o,rrJ make out a case against the accused: LQ w.lere the allegations in the FtR do nct conslitute a cognizable offetlce but constiti:u,ie only a non-cognizable offence, no investigaticn by a potice officer without an orc{er .permitted as contemplated under Seclr,rn o,t-1 !.al,-strate t cc(z) ot the Code, G) wlere the altegations made in the FtR cr complaint are so absurd and inherentl|t rmprobable on the basis ot wnici ," irr*ri, p,erson ever reach a just conclusion th,a, Inere is sufficient ground for proceedin:tc, against the accused; .can (9) where there is an express tegat be,r engrafted in any of the provisions ot tie Cod,l or the concerned Act (under which a criminz,:l proc-eeding is instituted) to the institution antj c,onfinuance of the proceedings and/or wherc:: there is a specific provision in tne CoAe orine. concemed Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggieved party; Q) where a ciminal proceeding is manifes,t,ly TttenaeA with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an 'ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to Pivate and Personat grudge " 05. On the other hand' learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No 1 as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No'2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract Sections 354-4' 354-D' 506 of the lPC, which reads as under: "354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment-- (!) A man committing any of the following acfs- Qlchysicat contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual oveftures; or I I I I l , l i t I I I I I 6 (jj)a demancl or request for sexual favours, or (iii)showing pornography against the will of a woman,' or (jv)making sexua y coloured remarks,shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2)Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or ctause (iii) of .sub_ (1) shatt be punished with rigo,tl,us l3ction rntpnsonment for a term which may exieno, to three years, or with fine, or with both. Q)Any man who commits the offence specfled in clause (iv) of sub_section (1) s,halt be p.unished with imprisonment of ei rcr description for a term which may extend to rt,)e year, or with fine, or with both. 354D. Statking.- (l)Any man who- (!)follows a woman and contacts, or attempts: kt contact such woman to foster peiso,tal interaction repeatedty despite a clear indica c,n of disinterest by such woman. or (i!)monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electrontc communication, commits the offence ol. stalking; Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves tha,l__ (i)it was p.ursued for the purpose of preventingl or detecting cime and the man accused cf stalking had been entrusted with ttrt> responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or(ii)it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition <.tr wo*r 7 I requirement imposed by any person under .any law; or fijlin the paiicular circumstances such inauct was reasonable and justified' (!)Whoever commits the offence of stalking :shatt be punished on first conuictian with iipasonm.nt of either description for a term. '*iiri *uV extend to three years' and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a or subsequent conviction ' with ""-na iiprironr"rt of either description for a term ,.wliicn may extend to five years' and shall also be liable to fine

506. Punishment for ciminal intimidation'- ffnour", commits, the offence of ciminal -irti*iauta, shalt be Punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years' or with fine' or *itn Ooti, tf threat be to eause death or gi"uo,r, huft, etc'- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt' or to cause the destruction of any propedy by fire' or to cause an offence punishabte with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a't:erm which may extend to seven years' or to impute, unchastity to a woman' shall be iunisnea with impisonment of either desciption for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine' or with both'" 07. ln order to attract the aforesaid penal provisions, there must be specific and credible allegations in the FIR or the charge sheet indicating that the petitioner- accused engaged in acts constituting physical contact with t I I , I i I I 8 I sexual intent, unwelcome physical, verbal, or non_verbal conduct of a sexual nature, demand for sexual favours, or made sexually suggestive remarks; or that he followed the complainant, attempted to establish repeatecl contact with her against her will, or monitored her online activities; or issued threats of injury with the intent to cause ararm or fear. However, a perusal of the material on record reveals that no such allegations have been made against the petitioner-accused. The dispute, as prolected, primarily pertains to a monetary transaction between ther petitioner_ accused and respondent No.2. There is, flrerefore, no materral on record to suggesl the commission of any incriminating act on the part of the petitioner-accused so as to bring the case within the ambit of the alleged penal provisions.

08. A plain reading of the FIR or charge sheet remained silent regarding any specific ro16, overt act, or involvement of the petitioner_accused in the alleged offences. Even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence w I t against the petitioner-accused ' Therefore' the present case falls within the parameters of point Nos'1' 3 and 7 of Ch.Bhaian Lal's case cited suPra

09. ln view of the aforementioned facts and circumstancesandhavingregardtothewell-settled principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthedecisionreferredsupra'thisCourtisofthe consideredviewthattheessentialingredientsnecessaryto constitute the offences under Sections 354-A' 354-D and 506 of the lndian Penal Code are not made out against the petitioner-accused Hence' the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed 'tO. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.1989 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial tVlagistrate of First Class (Special lvlobile PCR) at Karimnagar (for short'the learned trial Court')' are hereby quashed 10 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed r'-.1 I //TRUE COPYII "';tS,t.'ityAEt,tiRlx One Fair Copy to the Hon,bte Smt. Justice JUWADI SRIDEVI secrrbslrrrcen (For Her La dyships Kind perusal) To, I j ' IL'-3::T ilrtiilJJru":l ,asistrare or First crass(Speciar i\4obire ' I[:,r::fl"f;ffi]", Union or rndia Ministry or raw, Just,ce and company ' Jli,.l#",ji}Jffi::rr. Advocates Association, Library, Hish court 4. 11 LR Copies 5. The Station House Offic . Iy."":,n r, ; ;;:::, :]il 1';; ::: ;ffi : ::"J i":[::,

7. One CC to SRI B. One CC to SRI 9. Two CD Copies K VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCl v BALA MURAL|, Advocate IOPUCI "T pcsd./psl w ", i l HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 ORDER CRLP.No.5540 of 2023 iHE S 14 t t * 1 6 ,JuL 2$25 ) r-t ".1 -!-lC11 ::-' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 2> ."64 ffia: \6