The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad nnod )..vears occ beautician r/o ,'^n1'f .i*3'&53 l{: ilhHi".: il:il ff h: ,fB:3.31' "' ...Respondent No' 2/De facto Complainant ' Petition under Sectton 482 of cr P c Plilig"l['J"i"'l!"*i']iifl"'iii3i :t lff :i !'t ," #ii fl i l? ii*t .lf ' .,,* o i i :ir, i""",iff i".1 i:.?'.?;J' "[i rYJJ c L'*' "r"r' g i' t r a te' K h a ;"r ",1,I0?l "' "9" " l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr P C pra .,r,"0',"=ii"'n,"';:ll1:ir"j,,o;ffi J'1,3xlll be pleased t9grT-t '.ti1.":;;0;i on in" tit" ot netitioner in cc. no '' ''#,'^;;;;u, oi.t,i" fllass Magistrate, Khamm quash Proceedings' Ii 3.1[', J.' t: ", :J'f H:E T:; e":,i'.I i.l q : i [*; ff i:ffi t, penOing aisPosal of the matn ;i: I This Petition coming on for hearing' 'lol ,::"t'nn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petin"on ano upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advocate i"r.'tn" tti't'"ner and the Sri M' Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutoi on O"n''f of the Respondent No 1 and of Sri Thomas ;;;;,;;r""'te The Court made the following: ORDER ror the ResPondent No' 2 {' I I ,. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREI{DER CRIMINAL TIONNo.70 3() 0F. 2o27 OR D ER: This Crimina_l petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking lo q,_tersh proceedings in C.C.No. 12 13 of 2O2i, on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, l.hammam, Khammam District.

2. Heard ]earned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public Itosecutor for the responclent _ State. Perused the record 3. The 2,a respondent filed a complaint with the police alleging that ttL. petitioner had taken her phone nunrber and since then he has been calling her on her phone and unnecessarily sialking her. While speaking, the petitio;eer used to use double-mealing words and tried to control her. When she refused, he bore a grlldge against her. Thereafter, he had published a photo, which was cropped, i.e., the photo was edited in such a manner that the 2.d respondent and .lnother person belonging to a local part5r were only shown. According to her, the said ed.ited photo amounts to insulting her. 2

4. karned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that two complarnts were lodged' In the initial complaint' there was no allegation about any kind of contact that was made by the 2nd res'ondent, as such' *t O'"=t::::::::il:, ;:". ;; Even admitting the fact that the photo was c captioned with 'Good occasion' God bless you" which is not offensive. Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal and Others v' State of Haryana and othersl' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: ,,1r, the exercise of the extra-ord'inary power under Artscle 226or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure' the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse ofthe process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice' though it may not be possible to lay down any precise' clearly dehned and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give exhaustive list of rnyriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint' even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima I 1992 supp (1) sc 335 : : 3 in the First information --r "'rul,ce or make out a case arJarnst rials' if a,,y, accompanyinll ection 155(2) of the code; loverted allegations made in the the evidence collected in o not disclose the commissior of facie c.onstitute any offen the ac,:used; (b) w},t,re the a.llegations ih +L^ ^. Report ernd o,n". **"t'ots F.I.R. clo ,rot ai".ro."l ani'vestigati""*r"",,L""'f "J.jilj.:::,,:"stiryins of the ,rode except qnder .-^:-:"-":ectton ls;6(I) an order of a Magistrate within tne purview or'!o"t (c) where the uncont FIR .r 'complaint support ,;" the same ,rnd any offe.ce and make (d) wh.re rh" urr.sr;;""it';. #:l::I"" ri, ;,; cogniztrbje offence b ::-^ ".:"".:*" onlv a no1- cognizable offence, tnvestigation is permitted by a ". porice oflicer without order of a Magistrate a5 contempr.rt.d under Se< (e) wh e re r h e aregation "'::..t;ii:t;l; "".'::,,", *., are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basi:; of which no prudent person can ever reach a jus: conclusion that there is suflicient ground fo:. proceeding against the accused; (f) where the.re is an express legal bar engrafted in an; of the provi:;ions of the Code or the concerned Act (under u.hich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institutr.on and continuance of the proceedings and f or where there is a specific provision in the Code Of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance, of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mrala hde and/or where the proceeding is " ,1- 4 maliciouslY instituted with al ulterior motive for the accused and with a view to wreaking vengeance on and Personal grudge'" spite him due to Private 1S that the Petitioner' 5. The allegation in the complaint having the taken phone number of 2'i respondent' used to contact her on her phone and used' to talk to her with double- meaning words. Thereafter, a photograph that was deriberately edited was published' and only tvr'o persons were shown in the photograph' According to the 2'd respondent' the petitioner had deliberately edited the photograph to show her in bad light' In the charge sheet filed and also in the complaint' the phone numbers of petitioner' 2nd respondent' and other details of calls are glven'

6. Whether there was communication in between the 2'd respondent and the petitioner and whether editing a photograph amounts to an insult to the 2"d respondent can only be decided during the course of the trial' This Court ca-nnot determine the intent of the petitioner in deliberately editing the photograph' publishing it' or sending it on whatsapp. Further, this Court cannot conclude that only on account of political differences' a false complaint was filed' ,s ") 5 When the photogr aph being edited itself is admitted, and the ted that the photograph is an insult to her, interfere and quash the procee<iings. ail his defences before the trial (lourt. The being influenced by the observar.ions made on th() basis of " 2"a responclent sta this Court r:annot petitioner can raise trial Court, without rn this crrminal petition, shall adjudicate evidence adduc,ed by both parties during triaI. 7. Accorclingly, the Criminal petition is clismissed Miscellaneorrs applications pending, if any, shal stand crosed. The or.,..#;'y?Ealr#i,A //TRUEcoPYtt l\\, il.""#n} iqH:l,il"r&, ffi [:t-- u,,:5 ffi33 ," .; ;;;#; Iffi: xJ;il,"i:ffate roPucl To, 1 2 3 4 5 b. $ DL F. qr HIGH COURT DATED:12tO3t2025 lIt \ ORDER CRLP.No.7030 of 21121 ''i - uA 2 B rt,ril ,;lZ5 t' ai) * PAt Clll:,i DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 0)Gfo %'