The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENU(}{)PAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9919 of 2021 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 o. Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C) to quash the pr,r,. cedings in C.C No.3039 of 2O21 , pending on the filc of thi: earned XI Additior-ral Chief Metropolitan Magistratc, Secundcr'; L I rerd (hercin af[er relcrred as "the trial Court") againsl lh' pctitioncr accused

2. Hcard Mr. Pradyumna I(ltmar Redd_r' le:r r rcd Se nior Counscl representing Mr.T.Anin-rdh lteddy, learncrl : ounsel for the petitior-ier, Mr Thomas Lloyd, leat-ned ccLtnsel for responclent No.1 and Mr. E.Gancsh, learned Ass r;l ent Pr-Lblic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No., - Stat

3. Tl-re brief facts of the case are that on 3l - I 2.2( )O at 15.00 hours the de facto complainant-LW. 1 lodged against the petitioner u,herein she stated that lrcr fathcr complaint Mr.Sidhesrvar Upadl-ryaya's property and other as:j,'-s .rrc r\iitl-i her yortnger brother Su.jitl-r l(umar Upadhvava, rrlro is erlso ti"ait " as SI(U in the tamily. Further, the compl:,r1ant stated that the inhcritance property and compa--, share l Lr c l-r sl-routld ') EI''l'.1 LttL.t'.)io.9919 ttf 20) I - havc been given to thc daughtcrs is not given to her by her brother. Many discussions havc taken place, but he did not give her share. On 26.11.2016 she sent a notice through an advocate to come and solve the issue in tl-re prcsence of family elders, but he did not repl,v to thc notice. Since then he made several calls from differer-rt numbers and started threatening her. On i6.12.2O2O r.vhen shc u.as at her residence, she received a whatsapp mcssage from 9749355844 by name Barkathula to her number 9866249934 at I 1.00 hours. Then she started receirring man_v messagcs rvhich r,r.ere related to black magic, she immediarelv blocked tl-rc number. As she felt the number to be knovgn, she checl<cd the same in truecaller and found the name as SI{U r.r.hicl-r is short cut of his vounger brother Sujith Kumar Upadh-r.ala. Thcrcafter, she verified the number with her relatives:rnd shc carne to knou, that it was her younger brother, who personatcd himsclf to be Barkathula. He has threatened and abused her in lilth,r- language. Therefore, the petitioner committed oflences under Sectiorls 419, 3S5, 506 and 509 ol IPC, 66-A of Information Technolog, Act, 2O00. Thereafter charge sheet has becn filed against thc petitioner. ta|t./ CRl. l' ,t, 19tr 0t t0) I 4. Sri Pradyumna Kumar Rectdy, learned Senic,.. Colrnsel -l '.r,ould submit that lrom a bare perusal of the charglr shect, it can be noticed that except the complainant LW. tncl her husband LW.2, no other r,r,itnesses have been examin,r,:L and no scene of offence has bcen drawn by the respondent lrclice :rnd the panch s,itness Satyanarayana Kumar Singh, an:l nothing has been brought on record by the respondent policr. r. por-r the facts ancl ailegations madc agair-rst the petitioner, ro oLher evidence lrars been collected b-y the respondent police.

5. [t is fr-rrther submitted that the charge sheet u..- s laicl or-r the file of the learned trial Court uide CC No.3039 ol :. O2 1 on 06.O4.2O21, arisins or-rt of FIR No.236 of 2Oi'i). clared 31 .12.2O2O. He would furthcr strongly contend that ir is also necessary to examine the call records and messages trirr rsfcrrecl betr.r,een the de-facto complaitrant and the petitioner a-rd erlso the on,nership of the telephone numbers, in betu,eer l-re saicl messages have beetr conversed, except that allegatio trj made against the petitioner, there are no other materials in t Irc form of hard copies in her statement Lrnder Section 161 Cr.p.C, rvhich r,r.a s rccorded lty LW.S. The statement of indr pcnclent u,itness LW.2 Mr.Ral<esh N4ishra r,r,as also recorderi. lt is It r"J ( llL P tio.t)t) 19 ol 2(D I furtl'rer submitted that it is the clutr, on thc part of the 4 respondent poiice that urhile conductir-rg invcstrgation to obtain call records pertaining to the de-faclo complainant as well as the petitioner. As per Scction 65(8)(4) of the indian Evidence Act, a certificate is mandatory for tl-re admissibility of such electronic records in Court, particularl-\, r.r,hen prosecuting the petitioner under Section 66 A of the Inlormatior-r Technologr Act. ln the absence of such a certificate, the mcrc assumption of an offense under Section 66 A oi I'l Act s.ould amount to abuse of process of law by subjecting tl-rc pctitioncr to undergo trial.

6. It is further submitted that, based on the complaint filed by the complainant, the necessarv ingredier-rts to attract Section 419 of IPC are rtot prima facie prcscttt in lhis case. Thcrelore, the allegations made against the petitior-rcr do not meet the question of cheating under Sectron 419 of tPC. So lar as Section 385 IPC is concerned, cxtortion cannot bc statcd to have been made against the petitioner in the complaint and no allegation has been made in the said complaint so far as the demand of the petitioner to make out thc case urlder Section 38ul of IPC so as to attract Scction 385 of IPC. It is further l'. r't (:lll. t' i).991t) ol :0)l "J slrbmitted that the de facto complainant had :ir,egoricall]' -5 admitted in the complaint that the telephonic message u,hich she has received in the name of SKU" she assu rn :d that it pertains to the petitioner and no."r,here it has been s-, -ated thaL she has been intrmidated by the said messages tc, attract the provisions under Sections 506 and 509 ol IPC. Lealned Senior Counsel \\,ould rel)' on the judgment passed by th: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ir-r case of Shri Arjun I'anditrao Khotkar a. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantgal and. Ors1, held as follows

22.'l'te euitTetrcet telelutq to eL"ctroltic record, as rLoted l,let tttbefore, betrtg rt speci ltrot,tsiort, the getleral latu on secottdary ?.L,ialet t<.') lutder Ser:trort 6ll retul r.uiih Section 65 of the Euidertce Act shall yicltl to tlrc sartrc. GerrcroLut specialibus tlotL derogant, slrccial latu u,t ! cthuogs preuatL ouer the qenerctl laut. It appears, the court omitted to ttt t. rtote, of .Sedions 59 arttl 6.5 A deahng wilh the adrnissibiLitg oJ electrot rc re<:ord. Sections 6ll turtl 65 ltaDe tlo o.pplrcatiott trt the case of:erortclory euir.lerrce bg utorl oi electronic rt<:or<l; the. sqme s whollg gc't.et rred bg Sectio,rs 65 A oul 65 B. To tlrut extetlt, tlle stoteiLetLt t) 'etp otl cdntis.sibilitg of se'c:orv.lary euidettce. pertaining to eLectronic t't crd, es stqted bg tltis Oottrl Ur Naujot Sandhtt case, does not [e1J ']own tlrc correct leqaL l)ostlbn- Il requires to be ouet'ntled and we :,ct so. Art electronic record br1 tuatl of secorulurg eutdettce slLull not be ot't, ittecl itL euidett<:e irnle.ss l/rc: retluirettteris ttnder Sectiort 65 B are s.ttsfrecl. Tlttrs, itt tlrc case ol CD, VCD, cltp, elc., tlte sante shall be actttr patiecl bg tlrc certrtc k il fer?rs o.f Seclion 65-8 obtairLed ci the tirna ot'tekitlq tlrc docutrteti, railltottt tulticlt, tlte se<:<ttttlary eutdetLce pertaiu;t(t to lllcll electrorit: recorcl. is tttaclni ssible.

23. 'lhe appellurLt adtnittedl! ho.s not produced ang certtficol t ut ternts of Sectiott 65 li it respect (rf tlLe CDs, Exts. P-4, P-8, P 9, P 1) P12, P 13, P- 1 5, P 20 toLtl P 2 2. 'l'lrcreJbre, the setle connot be e,l,t tted ut eu[tlence- Tltlts. llle iulrole carse set up regording tlrc conltp ttractice usirrg sorrgs, unttouncettte,7ls ancl spceches Jali to the groLlttd. ' .rlR lo:0 supriLr\rt: ('ot R f r(r0s 6 ['l t J ( llL P \o 9919 o/ )Dl

21. Tlrc siluatiotl Luould hat/e been differettt hctd th<, apTtellrutt ctckhtc<,<1 prhnanJ eurdetrce, bU making auaitable in euidett(:e, Iite aI)s Llscd for arlrLouncentent and sotLgs. IIad tlose CDs used for objectiottcLble- sotL(Js or annou,Tcemetts been dulg got seized through tlte police or ElcctiotL Conrrnissror end llad tlrc same beert used as pinLerlJ eudetrce, tte High Courl could halle plaged tlte sanTe irt coLttl lo see u'ltetlrcr tlrcl ollegaLiotts utere tnte. Tl'Lat ts not the situctttotl rrr t/rr-s r:rrsr:. The -speec,he.s, sorrgs nnd annoutlceDtetlts Luere recorclacL Ltsi g other rn.strunrerrfs and bg feecltng thent into o c.ofiLput'?r, ODs t|ere trtcule lhere.frotn ruhich u,ere produced iL cout1, taitltout rhte certifitrliott. 'l'hose. CDs catutot be odntitted in euidettce sitce lhe nl.etdetory t(\f retnetlls of Section 65- B of the Euidertce Act ar". not scttisfie..l. IL is clerrfied tlwt tlotLu{tlstantdilg tuhel. u)e hque statetl trereitt rtr llrc pr"cedulal poragrc4)lLs on the secondary euideru:e ol eLectrotic record u'itlr refererrce 10 Sections 59, 65-A artd 65-8 of the Eutcletrce Act. if uL electronic record as such is useal os pimary eudetlce urtder Secttort 62 of the Euidetlce AcL the sarne is adnlissible it euide,lrce, urithout cotlpLietrce wttlt tlTe cottditiorls i,r Secfion 65-B oJ tl]6r EuicLetre. AcL" The Hon'blc Supreme Court in the above paras had hcld that requirement of certificate under Scction fjs B (4) of Evidence Act is mandatory

7. Learned counsel lbr the petitioner u/ould also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vikram Johar u The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr2 and u,ould submit that no case can be made out under Scction 385 oi IPC rlnless there is demand made by the irccuscd In the instant case neither the complainant says so, nor the lnvestigation elicited to that extent B. Learncd counsel for the petitioner \,ould sLlbmit that in the instant case the call records have been obtaincd, but they (20 19) 14 SCC 207 1 E r't'.J (.R'. !' \-o.991() ol 2021 have no \.eracity ol lhe telephonic conversation, wl'ric1t has been examine d by the prosecution and in the absence ,rI electronic evidence, subjecl.ing the petitioner under Section i(>-A of The Information Technologv Act, 2000 is perverse. Henc,:, seeks to allow this criminal petition

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respor-dent No.1 urould sLrbmit that [he trial is at the beginning stage, the learned trial Courl has thc auLhority to decide whc11r,: r to admit or to reject the evidence presented and it can also order the prosecution to condnct further enquiries. Since tlte trial is pending for quitc long Lime, the truth can be eli<:ited upon conducting the thorough enquiry, at this stage ini,: r ference of this Court is unu,arranted and seeks to dismiss tlri ; cr-iminal petltlon

10. Taking the similar line of learned counsel for rr:spondent No. 1, lcarned Assistarnt Pnblic Prosecutor would stLbmit that based upon the infolmation furnished b1, th €, de-facto complainant, lhorough investigzrtion has been cond r.r: ted. It is an admitted fact that the evidence as against thr: 1;etitioner, rvhere he had sent messages to the telephone numbe r of lhc de- /aclc complainant, \\ l-]ich are in the form of printed :rLrd copies. u -E L,l t .l (llL l' ,\i,9cltt ttl l0)l u,hcther said material evidence is admissiblc in evidetrce of lact or examined by the trial Court and hence seeks to dismiss this criminal petition 1 1. Having heard learned counsel lor tl-re pctitioner and lcarncd counsel for respondent No.1 and leartrcd Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon careful perusal of the matcrial papers furnished before this Court, this Court is of the opirrion thal prirru. fucie thc alleg:rtions levelled against tl-tc pctitioncr is lacking the ir-rgredier-rts to be attracted under Sections 419, 385, 506 zrnd 509 oi IPC as nothing subsists against ther pctitioner, who is :trra-t ed ar-t accused and only allegation tn:rdc b.r' thc d.e-fctc:to complainant is that the message which she has receivcd stated to have been sent by the petitior-rer ar-rcl based upon the said messagc, a complaint l-ras bcen lodgecl. Thc respondent police failed to examine the teiephone numbers and its ou'ncrship and no call records have been collected b.r' [he prosecution and have filed charge shcet. In the absencc o[ collccting anv evidcnce so far as conversation betr,r'cen the petitioner and the de-facto complainant, conducting lurthcr procccdir-rgs against the petitioner arc perversc. Undcr thcse circumstances, it is apparent in the complaint that acltnittcdl-y l,1 l ..J ('1ll.l' ', t)t)lr ol )()ll there are drsputes betu,een the families pertaining t(, t re assets 9 of father of the de-facto complainant and the accuse, l. The said disputes are to l:e scttled before [he Civil Court. LJ t, ]er these circumstances, this Courl r,l,ould rel1. on the judgrr e,nt of the Supreme Court ol India in case of State of Harqana and. others u Bhajanlal, t,hcrein the extraordinary poir cr under Article 226 of thc Constitrrtion of lnclia or the inher',.;.t [)o\\,ers under Scction 482 Cr-.P.C. can [)e e.xc-rcised by thc Ilrgl'r Court to prevent the abusr: of process ol an,r, Court or oth3ru'ise to secure the cnds ol jr,rstice. The gr-rideline No.7 is <,r:1 -a<-Led as

7. Where o oinhrctl proceeding is rnanfli::r,1" attended u'ttlt mctla firie artd./ or where I ri proceedirtg is rrrrrliciously tstituled ruith an uhet o. tnotiue for utrettltirtcl Dengeetlce ort the accused r i ri' uith a uietu Lo spite l:rLtn due to priuate and perso, rrt gtttcLge."

12. As per the guricleline No.7 srrpr-rlated in tl're jt rl;-,enrent of the State of Hdryana and others (cited supra) n, rrr : ol the ingredients u,ould .rttract agieinst the petition( r accusecl Therefore, this (lor-rrt deems it appropriate to luash the proceedings in CC No.3039 of 2021, pending on thr .ile of the learned XI Adclitional Chicf Metropolitan \iagistratc, Secundcrab:rr1 aga 'rst thc ltetitioncr accuscd. t0 lll t ..1 ( Rl. l' ,\o.9t)19 0l )(t: I

13. Accordir-rgly, Lhis criminal petitior-t is allou'ed Miscellancous pctitions, pending if ar-r1,, shall stand closcd //TRUE COPY// SD/. U. SUDHA ISTANT REGISTRAR AS ECTION OFFICER \l To, '1 The XlAdditional Chref Metropolitan Magistrate, secunderabd 2. The Station House Officer, Karkhana Police Station, Hyderabad. 3 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to SRI T S ANIRUDH REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI THOI/AS LLOYD Advocate [OPUC] 6 Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] \\,'u's,\ HIGH COURT DATED:1 5107t20Zs ORDER CRLP.No.9919 of 2021 .-a - , 'f:i t ro '.i. t, -) 1i) 3 0 ilil ru5 : --.i-. - ./ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ?A I go 1o I