The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BODA vENKATESWARLU, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri E. GANESH, Assistant Public Prosecutor 1T G) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAI- CRIMINAL PETITION No.l1322 of 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.904 of 2017 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, arising out of Crime No.47 of 2017 on the file of Mushirabad Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 497 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "rPC").

2. Heard Sri Y. Narapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. I -State.

3. A notice has been sent to the de-facto complainant and proofol service of the notice has been hled in the Registry where the postal cover has been returned with an endorsement that "No such person in the address". The said notice has been sent to the address provided by the de-facto complainant in the complaint. 4 -r

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal petition are that the de-facto complainant married Harisha and after their marriage, initially, the de-facto complainant and his wife lived with his parents. In 20 14, they relocated to Hyderabad. However, they soon discovered thal they would not be able to have children due to medical reasons. In 20 15, Harisha developed friendship with the petitioner/accu sed. who hails from Guntur district, through Facebook and eventually the relationship developed into an illicil affair. It is further alleged that the de-facto complainant's wife began subjecting him to both n'rcntal and physical harassment. It is also stated that despite the de facto complainant's attempts to inform the situation by confiding in Ilarisha's fhmily, thcy chose to support the wife's illegal relationship. ()n LSth August,2016, the parents of his wife came to Hyderabad and took her away with them

5. It was further contended in the complaint that the complainant then contacted the accused's wife, Jamuna Rani, to inform her of the affair. However, instead of understanding, she supported her husband's actions and wamed the complainant against further contact, threalgning to file a complaint against him if he continued.

6. It is further contended that later the accused called the complainant and mocked him, claiming that the complainant was incapabte of having children and that his wife, Harisha, desired a male child. 'fhe accused also demanded the complainant to transfer his property to his wife, Harisha; otherwise, he would kill him. As a result of grave threats made by the accused, the complainant filed a complaint. Upon taking cognizance of the case, the matter was registered as C.C.No.904 of 2017 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, for the offence punishable under Sections 497 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint does not contain any specific allegation regarding the petitioner's interactions with the wife of the de-facto complainant, including the place or circumstances of their alteged meeting and therefore, the allegations against the petitioner are vague and unfounded and only biled on false and frivolous allegations the complaint has been filed and consequently the charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, the ingredients ofsection 497 ofthe tPC do not attract. Hence, subjecting 6 - the petitioner lo face trial proceedings would ultimately amount to abuse of the process of [aw. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC do not attract to the present case, as in the charge sheet, the evidence provided is merely a standard statement that does not give any specific details. The charge sheet does not speci! the exact date on which the petitioner allegedty threatened the de-facto complainant and as it fails to provide clear evidence, subjecting the petitioner to undergo trial amounts to abuse of process ol law. Thus, seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of Indiat has held that Section 497 of IPC is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 2l of the Constitution of India and though Section 497 IPC is not in subsistence, the petitioner has been subjected to trial under Sections 497 and 506 IPC ' (zorg) : scc :s 7

9. Per contra, the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that as on the date of registration of FIR No.47 of 2017 dated 21 .02.2017 Section 497 olthe IPC was still in force and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 497 of the IPC has been struck down, does not apply to the present case. With regard to the oflence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner shall have to face the trial and without conducting the trial, there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the criminal petition.

10. In the light o[the submissions made by the leamed counsel for the petitioner and the Ieamed Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that as the Hon'ble Supreme Covl vide its judgment in the case of Joseph Shine (cited supra), has struck down Section 497, thereby rendering any trial under this provision is illegal and the proceedings under Section 497 of the IPC are no longer valid. As such, the continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.904 of 2017 under Section 497 of the IPC is not in consonance with the law and the said proceedings are liable to be quashed. -

11. With rcgard to Section 506 ol the IPC, this Court finds that neither the complaint nor the deposition of the sole eyewitness provides specific details, such as the date, time, or phone number of the de facto complainant, which are essential to invoke the provision of Section 506 of the IPC. In the absence of such crucial information, the ingredients ofSection 506 ofthe IPC do not attract ro the present case. The complaint lacks substance and appears to be frivolous. Therefore, sub.lecting the petitioner to further trial in this regard would amount to abuse of the process of law and the continuation of such proceedings cannot be justified.

12. At this stage, it is relevant to note the observations made by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlaf, whereunder the following categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinary' power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice. The said categories are extracted as under: " 1 . Where the allegations madc in the l;irst Information Report or the complaint, even i,f they are tuken 'tssz suee 1r1 scc::s 9 at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not primafacie constifine any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First ldormation Report and other malerials, i,f any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offcnce, justifying an investigation by police ofrtcers under Section 156 (l) of the Code excepr under an order of a Magistrale within the purt,iew of Section I 55 (2) of the Code.

3. ll/here the uncontroverled allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclosc the commission of any offence and make out a case against the acatsed.

4. Were, the allegation-s in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police off;.cer tithout an ortler of u Mogistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) 0f the Code.

5. llhere the allegatiotts made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd und inherently improbable on the basis of which no pntdent person can ever reach a just conclusion that therc is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where thare is an e-rpress legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions o/ thc Code or the concerned Act (under which q criminel proceeding is instituted) b the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a speciJic provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing eficacious redres.s for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Ilhere o crintinal proceeding is mani,festly attended with nnla.fide and/or vhere the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and uith a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. "

13. Therefore, it can be said that category No.l as extracted above in the case of Bhajanlal (cited supra) is relevant to the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is 10 conducted, no purpose would be served and there are no other specific - allegations against the petitioner.

14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allou,ed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.904 of 2017 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropotitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, are hereby quashed.

15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition. shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/i SD/- P. GOWRI SHANKAR D PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. 2, The Station House Officer, Mushirabad Police Station, Hyderabad City 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRl. BODA VENKATESWARLU Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies RC'/gh M. HIGH COURT DATED: 06t0312025 iAIi I I --) 1$ J\ I !)\: .-.rI \ ORDER CRLP.No.11322 of 2023 The Criminal Petition is Allowed 1A\t, s 1^