High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, Through SHO Hayathnagar PS' Ranga Reddy District.

2. Banothu Anasuya, D/o. Laskar, Aged about 27 years' Occ. Private Employee, Rio. H.No.7-150, Sai Nagar Colony, Peddaamberpet Village, Abdullapurmet lrilandal, Ranga Reddy District, N/o. Dudiya Thanda Village, Chilkur Mandal, suryapet District' ...RES'.NDENT/..M'LATNANTS Petition under Section 482 ol 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 cc No.6641 of 2020 on the file of the ll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar'; l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 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 in cc No.6641 of 2020 on the file of the il Adot.Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar, including appearance of the petitioners, pending disposal of the quash petition, and pass &" This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Laxmaiah, Advocate representing Sri V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Ms.V.Mythili, Legal Aid Counsel, for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.853O OF 2023 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C.No.6641 of 2O2O on the fi1e of the learned II Additiona,l Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar (for short, 'the trial Court") for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 504, 506 r lw 34 of I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr.Laxmaiah, learned counsel representing Mr.V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State and Ms.V.Mythi1i, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.11.2019 respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 stating that since, 2017 the complainant had various mobile numbers vrz., 87g}g42g52, 7036674637, 901065399, 6300964030, 6301 t34497 , 9949533439, 83408 13892 and 970367127| and that she received phone calls and messages from various cirrknown mobile numbers which are 95423216?4, - ) 9705449356, 9848292840, 7989540561, 63011344971, 7382404836, 9908394286, 8121505606, 8639891539, 6300377855, 8466897323, 996394046 and 9908869 163, stalking the complainant, abused her lilthv language and threatened her u,ith dire consequence; that from last few. months she received phone calis from unknown No.B304O8 13892 and introduced himself as Srinivas, forced her to marry him; that he sent porn videos and pictures to her. It is noticed that petitioners Nos.l and 2 are brothers and petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are their friends. Basing on the said facts, the present complair-rt is filed against the petitioners for the offences punishablc under Sections 354-D, 504, 506 rlw 34 of I.P.C

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that respondent No.2 filed a complaint against petitioner No.1 vidc Crime No.54 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 42O of I.P.C; that respondent No.2 filed another complzfnt against petitioner No.1 vide F.l.R.No.290 of 2Ol9 dated 16.05.2019 for the offence under Section 354(D) of I.P.C.; that respondent No.2, by suppressing the earlier complaints filed the presellt complaint against petitioners for the afore said offences. J

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent No.2 is a complaint monger and filed the present complaint with false and baseless allegations, which amounts to double jeopardy. Therefore, he seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the matter requires full-fledged trial and seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, relying on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. Vs. State of U,P. and Othersl arld upon taking into consideration the overall circumstances that lead to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation, this Court is of the view that multiple F.I.R.s registered over a period of time would evince wreaking out vengeance out of private or personal grudge betu,een the parties. Moreover, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.l . R. or complaint and the evidence coilected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the ' 2023 scc onLine SC 946 4 petitioners/ accused No.1 to 5. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in so far as petitioners/ accused No.1 to 5 are concerned in C.C.No.664l of 2O2O on the file ol the learned Il Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, I r" ! Addl Metropotitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar 2. The Station House Officer, LB Nagar I a O p.S., Rachakonda 3. One CC to SRt V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Advocate tOpUCl 1 9n" CC to Ms.V.Mythiti Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to pUBLtC PROSECUTCjR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two CD Copies VSM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 ISE AA J ( c g [;r r' 10fr o .t * ORDER CRLP.No.8530 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION f-nr / \6