The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 390 of 2025 of P.S. Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 390 of 2025 of P.S. Sangareddy Town, Sangareddy District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 None appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA 2 o This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.390 of 2025 on the file of Sangareddy Town Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offence under Section 224 BNS.

2. Heard Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for lh" petitioner submitted that respondent No.2-de facfo complainant is Assistant Sub-lnspector of Police, who has registered a case in Crime No.174 ol 2Q24 ot Gajwel Police Station, Siddipet District, under Section 4984 l.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the petitioner herein and others. lt is alleged in the present complaint that the petitioner herein is making calls to the de facto complainant and threatening her to speak to the complainant in Crime No.174 ol 2024 and get the case compromised, otherwise he would implicate her in false case. The said allegations are utterly false and that he never threatened the de facfo ./ I : I i I I I I I I I I I I I :i I i i 2 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l372l of 2025 complainant herein at any point of time. The police are hand-in- glove with the complainant in Crime No.174 of 2024 and are harassing the petitioner in one way or the other. Learned counsel, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Mohmadmohsin Mohmadirfan Chhalotiya v. State of Gujaratl. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioner herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the police could record the telephonic conversation made by the petitioner herein with the de facto complainant and the manner in which the petitioner threatened the de facto complainant can be elicited during the course of trial. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint specifically point out that the petitioner has threatened the de facto complainant-Assistant Sub- lnspector of Police to get the case in Crime No.174 of 2024 settled. The petitioner's counsel contends that in i ueNulcl/oo6ozotg { I I I I i I I i i l i I I I I I I I I I I i ; : i 3 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l372l of2025 Mohmadmohsin Mohmadirfan Chhalotiya's case (supra), it was held thus: "21 . Thus, in order to constitute the offence punishable under the aforesaid section, the necessary ingredient is "threat of injury. Section 44 of the IPC defines "injury" which denotes "any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property". ln order to constitute any threat of injury there must be an intention to inflict injury, loss or pain. ln the present case, the contents of the F.l.R. reveal that the petitioner had uttered the words "l will see you all" and will approach the High Court against them. Thus, assuming that the petitioner has occurred the aforesaid words, the same will not satisfo the ingredients of the expression "threat of injury", since merely during an altercation, if he utters such words will not amouht to an intention to inflict injury, loss or pain. Unquestionably, mere threat to approach the High Court does not denote injury. Lastly, examining the provisions of section 506(1) of the lPC, which stipulates punishment for criminal intimidation, it can be safely presumed that in the wake of the present facts, the ingredients of section 503 of the lPC, which defines criminal intimidation are also not satisfied. To satisfy the ingredients of Section 503 of the lPC, the threat must cause alarm in the mind of the victim which causes a person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do. No such feature is emerging in the present case. Hence, the F.l.R. registered for the offence punishable under sections 186, 189 and 506(1) of the IPC against the petitioner cannot be 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l372l of 2025 n allowed to be sustained in view of the afore-noted observations and analysis. " ln the present case, there are specific allegations pointing out the offence under Section 224 BNS against the petitioner herein. The de facto complainant has very much registered a crime against the petitioner herein under Section 49BA l.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, based on the complaint filed by the wife of the brother of the petitioner herein. lt is also not out of place to mention that the petitioner is alleged to have been making calls to the de facto complainant-Assistant Surb-lnspector of Police and threatening her to get the said case compromised. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the case on hand. ln the present case, since the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment less than seven years, it is deemed appropriate to direct the police to invoke Section 35(3) of BNSS.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to appear before the lnvestigating Officer concerned on or before 01.12.2025 between 1 1:00 AM and 5:00 PM, and in 5 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l372l of 2025 turn, the lnvestigating officer is directed to follow the procedure laid down under section 35(3) of BNSS and the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex court in Arnesh Kumar v. state of Bihar2 scrupulously and the petitioner is also directed to co- operate with the lnvestigating officer and to furnish the requisite information and documents as and when required by him. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER / To, 1- The Additionat Judicial First class Magistrate at sangareddy. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Sangareddy,sangareddy Distirct. 3. One CC to SRl. DIDA VtJAyA KUMAR Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL '(zott) 8 scc 273 HIGH COURT DATED:1011112025 ORDER CRLP.No.13721 ot2025 HE SI4 '( 3 otsJrN?t,?'l ,-? ... ,tl A. DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION q