The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearnce of the petitioner/Accused No.2 in CC No.4238 o'f 2022 for the offences U/s. 504, 506 r/w. 34 IPC on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, IVledchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar in Cr.No.298 of 2022 of SHO PS Nacharam. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nadipally Ananda Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri [\/.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Responderr t No.1 and of Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER %wr .{ -r7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14064 of 2024 oorr*#=..r"=* 2025 Between Ganji SarTeja The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor and one another ORDER AND ..Petitioner Respondents This Crimrnal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No 4238 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan [/agistrate, lVledchal-lValkajgiri District at LB Nagar (for sho( 'the learned trial Court') registered for the offences under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')

02. Heard Sri Nandipally Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, 2 learned Additional public prosecutor for the State_ respondent No.'1 as well as Sri Srinivasa Srit:r rnth. learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. f,erused the record 03(a) The brief facts of the case are that the accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant_respr ndent No.2. The accused No.1 got acquarntance with th: respondent No.2 at Brahmakumarr Organization and deve loped close relation with her The accused No.1 was alr:rdy married with another women and having a son and a darghter. lt is alleged that the accused No.1 stated to the resp tndent No.2 that he had divorced with his wife and the ci ughter was staying with her and the son i.e. the petitioner-er cused No.2 was staying with him, and married the responrl, rnt No 2 on 25.03.2010 and they led marital life. They lid medical business. 03(b). lt is further alleged that in the yea 2020, the respondent No.2 suffered from ill_health and, on t rat ground, stayed at her parental house. During her a[ sence, the 3 accused No.1, along with his alleged divorced wife, performed the marriage of their daughter. When the respondent No 2 questioned the accused No.1 in this regard, he is stated to have abused her in filthy language and assaulted her with his hands, which conduct was allegedly supported by the petitioner-accused No.2. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 left the house of the accused No.1 and returned to her parents' house. lt is further alleged that the accused No.1 transferred certain amounts from their joint business account to his personal savings account and upon being questioned thereon, he left the company of the respondent No.2 and did not return. Hence, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint seeking necessary actlon against the accused 04 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. There are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No.2. The allegations in the charge sheet, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence. The contents of the charge sheet, on 4 their entirety, do not disclose the essentirl ingredients necessary to attract the alleged offences under liections 504, 506 read with 34 of lpC Hence, he prayed o quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 2

05. On the other hand, learned Adciional public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent rlo.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial resl> tndent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factu ll aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is r ot a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petrt r ner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after coi ducting full_ fledged trial by the learned trial Cou( and pray:l to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. ln view of the facts and circumsta rces of the case, it is relevant to refer Sections 504 and i06 of lpC, which reads as under: "!0t!- lntentional insutt with intent to provoke brea,; t of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and ther by gives provocation to any person, intending or kno a ing it to be likely that such provocation will cause hit i break the pubtic peace, or to commit any (tt ler offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of e;L rcr w I I : 5 description for a term which may extend to fuvo years, or with fine, or with both- 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation: Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine' or with both;lf threat be to cause death or gievous hurt, etc.- And if the threat be to cause death or grievous huft, or to cause the destruction of any propefty by fire. or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for tife, or with mprisonment for a term which may extend lo seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both " 07 A plain reading of the aforesaid penal provisions makes it clear that, in order to attract their application, there must be specific allegations of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace and of criminal intimidation attributable to the petitioner-accused No.2 A careful perusal of the record discloses that the respondent No 2 and the accused No.1 are the wife and husband and that the petitioner-accused No.2 is the son of the accused No 1 through his first wife. The sole allegation levelled against the petitioner-accused No.2 is that he supported the accused No.1 in the alleged acts of harassment. lt is evident from the record that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the 6 respondent No.2 was soremnized on 25.03 irr ).1 0 and since then they resided together, along with the pet I oner-accused No2

08. A perusal of the contents of the :harge sheet discloses that. in the year 2020, the accused lJ r l along with his first wife, performed the marriage of t^:rr daughter, whereupon the respondent No.2 questionec the accused No.1 in that regard, which allegedly led to the iccused No..1 abusing and assaurting her, as a resurt of whr ; r she reft the matrimonial home and returned to her parenti house. lt is further alleged that the accused No 1 transt, jrred certain amounts from the jornt account maintarned l: r hintself and the respondent No.2 to his personal savr r ls account. lnitially, the case was registered against fifl::n persons, namely the accused Nos..1 to 15; however, up(,r completion of the investigation, the names of thirteen !( rsons were deleted from the array of accused. Upon a carei I scrutiny of the entire material on record, there are Do Sprl ;rfic acts or averments attributing intentional insult with interr to provoke l I I ! I I t I t ! t I I I l 7 breach of the peace or criminal intimidation on the part of the petitioner-accused No.2 as against the respondent No.2

09. ln Stafe of Haryana and others v. Ch-Bhaian Lal and othersl the Honourable Supreme Court held that "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Adicle 226 or 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 of fhe process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possibte to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (l)where the allegations made in the First lnforlnation Repoft or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and acceptecl in thei entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (2) where the atlegations in the First lnformation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.t.R. do nol drsc/ose a cognizable offence, iustifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (!) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected ' tggz scc (supp) t ggs 8 in support of the same do not dlsc/os r the commission of any offence and make out tr case against the accused; (!) where the allegations in the FtR do not cor : litute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non_ cognizable offence, no investigation is permitte,l by a police officer without an order of a Magistrt I t as contemplated under Section 1 SS(2) ot thte Cocle (!) where the atlegations made in the F 'l , or complaint are so absurd and inherentty improba;t the basls of which no prudent person can ever r tach a just conclusion that there is sufficient groLltt I for proceeding against the accused; = (9) where there is an express legat bar engraftt d in any of the provisions of the Code or the conc,> ned A.ct (under which a criminat proceeding is instituht l) to the institution and continuance of the procee)'ngs and/or where there is a specific provision in the I lde or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redre:i for the grievance of the aggrieved paiy; (Z) where a criminal proceeding is manifeslv atte.., jed with nnla fide and/or where the proceedit,e rs maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a u,ew to spite him due to private and personal grudge.., 10. ln the present case, the alleged incirJ..nts pertain to the year 2020. lt appears that the responder t No.2 was primarily aggrieved by the conduct of the acltsed No..1 , particularly with regard to the transfer of certit n amounts from the joint account to his personal account, wir :h appears I : I ,l l I l i,l l! 11 11 : :: i: Ir w t I l i I to have prompted the respondent No-2 to lodge the present complaint. lnitially, the case was registered against the accused Nos.1 to 15; however, upon completion of the investigation, the names of thirteen persons were deleted from the array of accused. There is no specific allegation or averment that the petitioner-accused No.2 either threatened the respondent No 2 with any intent to cause alarm or acted in a manner so as to provoke a breach of the public peace' The charge sheet does not set out any circumstances to indicate that the respondent No 2 was intimidated by the petitioner-accused No.2 so as to suffer , reasonable apprehension for her life, limb, or property' any real or Therefore, the essential rngredients of the alleged offences i.e criminal intimidation and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace are not made out Even if the allegations contained in the charge sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute the alleged offences against the petitioner- accused No.2, and the material collected during the course of investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, does not x f- I l 10 disclose the commission of any offence so as o make out a case against him. Hence, the present case squarely falls within the ambit of point No.3 of the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (cited supra). Conse quenily, the contrnuation of criminal proceedings against t re petitioner_ accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of ;,r cqss5 .1 1r\u and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 11 Accordingly, this Criminal peiltion ir; allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-;r:cused No.2 in c.c No.423g of 2022 pending on the fire of 1re rearned V Additional I\/letropolitan l\4agistrate, Medci al_lValkajgiri District at LB Nagar, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous ap 1 lications, any, shall stand closed . /L Sd/- (. BHAVANI SWAMY / ASIJ STANT REGISTRAR 1 //TRUE COPY// L_+ SECTION OFFICER To,

2. 3. 4 5 6 Svs4<am Il!; oooo'""a| Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchat-Mau:i jgiri District. At L.B The Station House Officer. Nacharam police Station, Hy.r erabad. Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Co;rt i;;ihe stir : of Tetangana, at* Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri Nadioailv Ananda Rao, Advocate tOpUCl one_CC to SRt Srinivasu sr*rnin, il;;1;"fffiU"Jl" Two CD Copies I HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025 -I EJ 1 s '7 )t c' I o dt- &s) \{ ORDER CRLP.No.14064 of 2024 ALLOWING THE CRLP 1 $