The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section s2g of BNSS praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar-pe'tition, the High court ,.nlv u" pleased to grant stay of ail further proceedings in cc No 1914 of lozq, on tnl rit" of the ll Additionar Metropolitan Magistrati At Kushaiguda, rncruding p"rsonrt appearance of the petitioner. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri MoHAMMAD FAYAZ, Advocate for the petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramafla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12535 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1914 of 2024 on the file of ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kushaiguda, for the offence under Section 74 of BNS.

2. Heard Sri tMohammad Fayaz, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.'1-State 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the petitioner that he misbehaved with the de facto complainant is false and that the WhatsApp chats submitted by the petitioner clearly show that the respondent No 2 herself has messaged the petitioner inviting him and that the said message contradicts the allegations in the complaint. He further submitted thattherespondentNo.2herselfhasinvitedthepetitionerintothe car and that they had a discussion about the business in the car whichnegatestheallegationsofforceorintimidationagainstthe petitioner herein. He further submitted that it was a consensual interaction and not a criminal act, and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. He further submitted that after ETD,J Ctl.P. N6-12535 of 2025 registering the present case, the de facto complainiant was calling and demanding Rs.75.00 lakhs for withdrawing tht-' complaint. He also submitted that the petitioner never comrnitted any act outraging the modesty of the de facto complainzrnt and that the prosecution can as well collect the CCTV footal;e of Sainikpuri Coffee Caf6 which is a public place, in front of whir:h the offence is alleged to be committed. The counsel has relied u oon the decision in G. Sudhakara Rao v. K.V. Siva Prasad and othersl. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned Additional Pubhc Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner herein is a tenant of the de facto comltlainant and that the police collected the CCTV footage and ample rTaterial to prove the case and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petitic n.

5. Perused the record

6. The contents of the complaint disclose tl-at believing the words of the petitioner, the de facto complainarrt has invested Rs.60.00 lakhs by transferring the amount into his account and that on the alleged date of incident, they were having drscussion inside the car and that suddenly, the petitioner has touchr-.d her private parts and behaved in objectionable manner and trie,l to outrage her ' zoz+ 1:1lr-o 1crr.1eer 1ee1 J EfO,J Ctl.P, No-12535 ol 2025 modesty by making inappropriate sexual contacts and attempted to molest her. lt is further alleged that he demanded Rs'1'50'0001 and threatened if she does not give money' he would lodge false complaints and file false cases against her and when she dialed 100 to lodge a complaint, he ran away from there Thus' the contents of the complaint and charge sheet, prlma facie point out the offences against the petitioner herein'

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of G. Sudhakara Rao v. K.V. Siva Prasad and others' wherein it was held that: 'The court must ensule that criminal prosecution is not used as an rnstrument of harassment or for seeking prlvate vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused' On analysis of the aforementioned cases, this Court is of the opinion that it is neither possrble nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of lnherent jurisdiction lnherent lurisdrction of this Court Under Section 482 of Cr'P'C though wrde has to be exercised spafingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is iustified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforernentioned cases As the complainant, having lost the battle in civil litigation filed the present complalnts wlth an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused would amount to abuse of process of Court Therefore, the crimlnal petitions deserve to be allowed,''

8. The facts of the said case differ from the case on hand' Further in the present case, the allegations prima facie point out the \ \ 4 ETD,J C4.P. No.125XS oI 2025 offences against the petitioner herein, hence, flte cited decision does not apply to the case on hand. The evicjence with regard to payment of Rs.60.00 lakhs and also the CCW footage etc., have to be tested during the course of trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial court. L Accordingly, the Criminal petition s disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner ltefore the trial court provided, he is represented b.y a counsel i)n every date of hearing before the trial court and he shall appea. before the trial court as and when hrs presence is required durirrg the course of trial. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shaii stand closed. SD/- A JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate At Kushaigud,r, 2. The Station House Officer, police Station, Kushaiguda, F:achakonda. 3. Two CCs to the PUBLTC PROSECUTOR, High Court at lyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRt I\4OHAMMAD FAyAZ Advocate [OpUCl 5. Two CD Copies TPK/ABK k HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 .a' ( Jrle Sf4 a4. o,|. 20Ml,m c t) t "r. ,^/ \ ORDER CRLP.No.12535 ot 2O2S CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOSI=D OF *.odd H^l \5\ "