The High Court · 2025

Order

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRINIINAL PETITION No.14E6l OF 2024 Heard Sri Dama Seshadri Naidu, leamed Senior Counsel representing Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siddharth Luthra, leamed Senior Counsel representing Sri Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l and Sri Goalta Seshadri, leamed counsel lor respondent No.2.

2. This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.1205 of 2024 pending on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad ( for shon, 'the subject crime').

3. The petitioner hercin is A. I in the subject crime. The offences atteged against the petitioner herein are punishable under Section 120-8, 386,409 and 506 read with 34 ofIPC and Section 66 of the Information Tcchnology Act, 2008 ( for short, 'the IT Act') Facts of the case:-

4. On the complaint lodged by 2'd respondent dated 01 .12'2024, the Police Panjagutta, registered a case in Cr'No.1205 of 2024 against the petitioner herein and other accused fbr the aforesaid offences. As 2 KL,J Crl.P. No 14861 of2024 ) per the said complaint dated 01 .12.2024 of 2nd respondent, the allegations lo,eled against the petitioner hereiny'A. 1 and A.2 are as fo Ilows:- i. On 21 .03.2021, the 2"d respondent stafted the "Farmers First Foundation" at GS chambers, Nagarjuna Circle, panjagutta, with an object to encourage Organic farming by providing Fanners with nrodem techniques and creating business opportr-rnities through stalls. ii. On 25.09.2022, he organized a program at "Konda Bhudevi Garden" near new bus stand Siddipet, where he financialty suppo(cd the families of 100 agricultural tenant farmers who had conrnitred suicide by providing Rs I lakh to each farnily, in total Rs. I Crore. iii. On26.01.2023, he disrributed Rs. I lakh each ro I50 rvidows of Farmers rvho had committed suicide. iv. Since hc did not invite A.l, he bore grudge on him as his charitablc activities were gaining significant public support, and he was bccoming increasingly popular in the public. v. The petitioner along with A.2 and others criminally conspired to harm hirl posing a threat by falsely implicating him in false \ 3 KI-,J Crl.P. No.l486l of2024 cases to tamish his reputation and they threatened him with dire consequences, if he did not stop his charity work in the petitioner's constituency. vt. On 23.01 .2023, he announced plans to start a small scale "Aggipetta Macha" company (Match box company) in Siddipet district intend ing to uplift the lives of poor families. vll. On 04.02.2023, a false Case vide Cr.No. 4912023 for the offences under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC was registered against him at the instance of thc petitioner herein/A. I . vl . The 2nd respondent was arrested and brought to the ACP office in Shamirpet and later rernanded to judicial Custody. He began receiving threatening messages on his mobile Phone from unknown numbers, questioning as to how he is getting money and he has to meet those persons. x On 15.03.2023, he joined in BJP party in Delhi in the presence

of BJP leaders like Sri. Eetala Rajender and Sri. Tarun Chugh' In April 2023, he provided financial assistance to farmers in Siddipet aflected by heavy rains. xl. On 28.04.2023, while he was in his office, at Panjagutta, policemen in civit clothes raided his off,rce, took him into \ 4 KI-,J Crl.P \o.14861 of2024 custod\ and produced him before Sri. Radha Kishan Rao, Task Forcc Police Olficer/A.2, who threatened him stating that the petitioner herein/A.l was angry at him for organizing programs in his constituencv without his consent. They also threatened him that they would close his chapter if he does not change his party. When he refused, they took his phone nunrber, took hirn to CCS police statior-r where two more cases vide Cr.Nos.908 of 2023 and 909 of 2023 were r.egistered against hirn. l-ater they returned his phone and rvas sent to xl ll judicial remand. Lalcr he s ls enlarged on bail in both cases. He *,as a_eain implicated in a false case vide Cr.\o. 522 of 2023 of (ihatkesar Police station on the basis of cornplaint filed by Mr. Avinash. XV On 29.08.1023, he received an e-mail from 'Apple' (threat notilication@ apple. Com) waming him that his I-phone might be targeted by State sponsored attackers. The e-mail stated that such attackers could remotely access his sensitive data, communication, and even devices, microphone or camera. j $ 5 K L.J Crl P No.l486l of2024 He aspired to contest the MLA seat for Siddipet on BJP ticket, but when he was not nominated, he joined BSP party and secured the MLA ticket. During the election campaign, he contacted numerous supporters and followers. Many of them later informed him that they had received threatening calls warning them not to attend his events. These individuals also repofted that the caller knew about their conversations which led him to suspect that his E- phone'was being tapped. xvlll. He suspect that the petitioner herein/A' 1, using State intelligence resources, was monitoring his moments' activities, his associates and his family mernbers to spoil his potitical career. xtx. His Mobile Nos. 9014062 47 | , 95937 66666 as well as his wife's mobile No.9100245853 were illegally tapped. He suspected that the petitioner herein/A.l abusing his power as a minister influenced the Police officials to monitor his activities xx. The Police department did not book a case on his petition and did not take any action against the persons who had put 6 KI,.J C.l P. \o.14861 of2024 surveillance over hiln, his relatives, his associates. harassed

5. The petitioner sought to quash the said FIR against him contending as lol lon's:- The allegations made against him are vague and baseless There is abnormal delay in lodging complaint. 2nd rcspondent failed to explain the said delay. The Police. Paniagutta, has not followed the procedure laid I l1 IV down undcr lau, Without conducting preliminary enquiry, verifying the contents ol the said compliant, Police, Panjagutta implicated him in the prescnt citse vl. The e'ntire complaint is silent about the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. vr t. The petiLioner herein is the Member of Legislative Assembly (Ml.A) liom Siddipet Assernbly Constituency. The petrtionel has seryed as a Minister for Major Irrigation, Le,eislative Affairs and Marketing In 2019. he served as a Minister for Finance and a Minister for Medical and Health Department. 7 KL,J Crl I' No.14861 ol'2024 x. The petitioner herein has been working for the welfare of Siddipet Constituency as an MLA and has been contributing for the development of Siddipet Constituency. xi. The petitionei herein is a law-abiding citizen and if the petitioner undergoes into judicial custody his political career and his fame would be put to stake. Since the defacto-complainant defeated in the recent Assembly Elections, could not take his defeat and trying to initiate one or the other false cases against the petitioner herein. xllt. The complaint prima facie, lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein Defacto-Complainant is time and again initiating one or the other vexatious petitions like Election Petition No. 15 of 2024, WP No. 19502 of 2024 and WP No. 15527 of 2024 against the petitioner herein xv. WP No. 19502 of 2024 filed with regard to the phone tapping, by the defacto-complainant was withdrawn by him xvi. The allegations made in the complaint or FIR by the Complainant even if taken at their face value and accepted in I { r.t 8 KI,,J Crl.P. No 14861 o12024 their t'rrtilc-tv, do not, prima facie constitute the subject oflenct's xvlt. In thc circurnstance stated above, the arrest of the petitioner would causc unreasonable hardship and merrtal agony apart fionr beine unfair, contrary to the interest of justice and tantar-nount to abuse of the process of law xvlll. To establish criminal breach of trust under Section 409 lPC, the prosccution lnust prove entrustment of property under Section 40-5 of IP('. to prove extorlion under Section 386 of IpC, one ol the necessarl, ineredients is that the victim must have been inducecl to deliver to any person any property or valuable securil\, etc xlx. l{orvcver, in this case, instance of extortion is pleaded for the first lirnc in the remand diary only To prove ollcnce under Section 66 of IT Act, ingredients of Section ,13 are to bc made out. Even if the FIR is taken on the face value, no offence under Section 66 of IT Act is made out. Respondents have relied only on e-mail which states that the State sponsored attackers may be targeting his iphone. The waming in thc said e-rnail itself clarifies that it might be a false 9 KL,J Crl P No.1486l of2024 alarm, therefore, upon such e-mail nothing can be attributed to the petitioner. It is settled law that the Court may quash the criminal proceedings even at the preliminary stage if the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue' xxlt. In the cases seeking quash on the ground of frivolous or vexatious or instituted with an ulterior motive lbr wreaking vengeance, it need not be looked into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are disclosed or not. [n frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court also look into the other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments' xxlll. The present FIR is an afterthought and was registered on

01.12.2024 after the defacto-complainant joining the present ruling pafty.

6. Both the leamed Public Prosecutor and leamed counsel appearing for 2nd respondent opposed the present criminal petition contending as follows:- l 10 KL,J Crl P No.1486l of2024 A.2 workcd as Additional Superintendenl of Police in Nalgoncla. got close acquaintance with the petitioner herein/A.1 and with the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda. lt. The petitioncr hercin along with A.2 are part of conspiracy in tapping phones of several people includingjudges of this Court. Though A.2 u,as letired in August, 2020, he was appointed as OSD and continued his duties as DCP, Task Force which is agrinst Iari. 'l-here rvas no tlelay in lodging the complaint. lv. There is allcgation o1- continuous torture of 2nd respondent in the cornplaint date<J 0l .12.2024. Investigation is pending and thereforc. it cannot bc scuttled at the threshold. Apart liom thc phone tapping, there are other allegation of torlure bv thc pctitioner in the present crime. vl. A.l in thc subjcct crirle, the then Minister, has grudge over the 2"'r respondent and therefore, at his instance, the police implicated hinr in sevcral cascs. vll. Thc 2"'r respondent contested as a Member of Legislative Assernblv, fiorn Siddipet Constituency, in which A.l is representing. Therefore, A. I bore grudge against 2nd respondent. I I *it-ii l1 KL.J Crl P. No 14861 of2024 viii. A.2 harassed 2nd respondent directing his subordinates to produce 2nd respondent before him in the Task Force office and on production, he made the 2nd respondent to kneel down. ix. He has shown the same through video to A.1. x. Since A.l was in power, out of fear, 2nd respondent did not lodge a complaint immediately and on getting message from 'Apple' on 29.08.2023. Thereafter, he has submitted a representation to DGP on 19.06.2024. Therefore, there is no 't delay.

7. Sri Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri R. Chandrasekhar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siddharth Luthra, Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, made their submissions extensively.

8. Sri Dama Seshadri Naidu, leamed Senior Counsel placed reliance on the principle laid down by Apex Court as well as this Courl in the following judgments:- l) Madhavrao Jirvajirao Scindia v.Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angrer 2) Manik Tancja v. State of Karnataka2 3) $ohd. Wajid v. State of U.P.3 \ I iretey r scc oez 'z (2ots) i scc 423 r (2023) SCC OnLine SC 951 l) K L,J Crl I' No.l486lof2024 - 4) Vague Allcgation and Abusc of Process Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Prarlcsh{. 5) Usha Cbakrahorty r. Statc of Wcsl Bengals 6) Achin Gupta r'. State of Haryana6 7) Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. Statc of T.N.7 E) Kishan Singh vs. Gurpal Singh8 9) Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarhe l0) Lalitha Kumari vs. Govt.of UPr0 ll)Mahmootl Ali vs. State of [JI'rr l2) Common (lausc vs. Union of India12 l3) Deepak ( iaba r s. Statc of til'rr l4) Salib vs. State oI UI'ra l5) Ramcsh lta.jagopal vs. Devi l'olymcrs (p) Lttt.rs l6) AIICD vs. f nion of Indiar6

9. Sri Siddharth Luthra, leamed Senior Counsel representing leamed Pr.rblic [)tosecr-rtor placcd reliance on the principle laid down in the follou,ing.i udgrrents :- I ) Statc vs. M.Maridossr? 2) Sitldharth Mukesh llhandari vs. State of.Gujaratrs o (2025 ) SCC Onlinc SC l7 t (zozl) ts sctc t:: 6 2024 SCC Online S( i59 ' 1zozz1 ts src ta.t '(zo to) 8 scc zzs 'lzoroy e scc r 'o 1zo t3.y t4 s{:n z t I " 12023.y l5 scc a8s '' 1tese,; o scc ooi '' (2023) 3 scc +z: '' 120231 SCC OnI-inc SC 947 ''1zoto;6scc:ito 'u (zozz)ts scc t o.t '? (2023) 4 y of i8 l3 KL,J Crl.P. No.laE6lof202a 3) CBI vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmire 4) Lalita Kumari vs. Govt.of Uttar Pradesh2o 5) Common Cause vs. Union of India2 6) Neeharika Infrastructuie Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra22 7) State ofTelangana vs. Habib Abdutlah Jeelani2s 8) Directorate of Enforccment vs. Neeraj Tyagi2a 9) Ravuri Krishnamurthy vs. State of Telangana2s 10) Savitri Gocnka vs. Kussum Lata Damani26 l1) Mahendra K.C. vs. State of Maharashtra2T 12) Rafiq Ahme dbhai Paliwala vs. State of Gujarat2s 13) P.Mohan Reddy vs. State of Tclangana2e 14) Naresh Aneja vs. State of U.P.30 15)Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chautlharill 16) Jayaprakash T vs. State of Keralal2 l7)Prabha Surana vs. State of Nagaland3l 18) P.Mohan Reddy vs. State of Telanganara 19) Mecna Gill vs. Pra<Iecp Gupta3s 20) Mahcndra K.C. vs. Statc of Karnatakas6 '8 (zoo2) to scc s;o 'e (zo2t) t8 scc t:s '?o (zot+) z scc I '' ( t999) 6 scc 667 tt (202 r) t9 scc 40 t " 1zon12 scc 'ns 'o (zozq s scc qtg '5 izoz t.y p scc +s8 ?61zoo;) t+ scc :z: " (zozz) z scc tzg " 120t9; 5 scc +6c " i2oztl scc ont-ine't'S 844 ro (2025) scc onLine SC 3 t'12ozzy ts scc z8s r'?(2021) SCC ont.ine Ker 3634 13 lzozz; SCC OnLine Gau 2044 34 (202lSCC OnLine TS 844 35 izot+; SCC Ont-inc Del 8954 1zoz42 scc tz9 k t4 KL,J Crl.P No I4861 ot2024 .> 2l) tmtiyaz Ahmad vs. Statc of UPrT

10. Learned counsel appcaring for 2nd respondent placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Courl of Uttarakhand (Nainital llench) in Kuldeep vs. State of UttarakhandrE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THTS COURT:-

11. In thc light of the said submissions, in the representation dated 19.06.2024. slrbmitted to DGP, Telangana,, 2nd respondent has stated that he rccci'n,cd e-rnail from Apple con-rpanv with regard to phone tapping relating to mobilc Nos.9014062471 and95937066666. He received information on 29.08.2023. The Ex-Minister (A.l) in the previous govemrnenl influenced the officials in Police Department, A.2 and his tearn, who concentrated on his moments and also his office at Siddipet. He contested as a Member of Legislative Assembly of Siddipet ConstituencV in the elections held in November, 2023, as a BSP Candidate. I)uring the said period also, A.l influenced the Police officials o1- the State and l.rarassed him politically which disrupted A.l 's political career and made ?"d respondent a political hurdle for him. Therefore. A.1, using his politicat inlluence, irnplicated him i4 7 " izo rz; z so{: era r3 (2022) LaNSuil (Urr) .177 I l L l5 KL,J Crl P No 14861 of2024 several criminal cases and tapped his phone, harassed him mentally' A.2 and his staff, on the instructions of the petitioner/A.1, started following his conversations over phone with his wife, lamily members and friends in politics, and threatened them. This constant surveillance disturbed his privacy. The petitioner/A.l and A.2 has obtained call data and taken photographs from his phone and placed them on'You Tube' social media etc. t2. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P'C' in ! Cr.No.243 of 2024, while reiterating the aloresaid facts, znd respondent further stated about the petitioner/A' I implicating him in several cases including Crimc No.49 of 2023 pending on the file of P.S.Shameerpet, for the oft-ences under Section 376 read with 511 of IPC. Thus, the A.1 along with A.2 hatched a plan to matign his reputation, discourage and demoralize him as he is doing charity'

13. He further stated about joining of BJP party, extending financial assistance to farurers eflected in heavy rains in Siddipet in Apr1l,2023, thereafter, he received threatening messages to his mobile phone from unknown pcrsons with dire consequences'

14. On 28.04.2023, while he was present at his Panjagutta office, the policemen in civil clothes raided his office, took him into t6 KI-,J ( rl P No 14861 of2024 thcil custodv and procluced hirn before A.2 who tlueatened him to change his party to BRS lrom BJP and not 10 organize any programmes in the petitioner's/A.l 's constituency. l{e lurther stated about registration ol two crimes i.e. Cr.Nos.908 and 909 of 2023 against him. Subsequently CCS Police have sent him to judicial rernand in the said cases 1 5 . Orr 29 .08.2023, he leceived an e-nrail from threat noti/ication (.! appla.com in which they specified that'apple believes that he was being targeted by state-sponsored attackels. I{e also rcceived threatening calls to his Apple ID 'Chakre.chikki @ gmail.com '. I'hese atlackers are likely to target him individually because o1-who he is or rvhat he does. If his device is compromised by a State sponsored attacker, they may be able to remotely access his sensitive data comrnunications, or even the camera and rnicrophone. On receipt of said message from Apple, he updatbd his i-phone as per the instructions received through mail and he thought that his phone was r tapplng

16. Meanwhile. he did not receive the MLA ticket from Siddipet constituency from BJP party, as such, hejoined in BSP party and got MLA ticket for Siddipet constituency. During election KI, J Crl.l' No.t486l of2024 campaign, he received threatening calls. Therefore, he suspected that A.1 might be tapping his phone. A.1 was monitoring his moments, activities of his associates and his family members to sabotage his political career and unlawfully influence the outcome of the elections.

17. It is further stated that after general assembly elections, he came to know through print and electronic media about the news regarding phone tapping case.

18. On observing the same, he has realized that his phone ;t- -s Nos.9014062471 and also 0593766666 as well as his wife's phone number i.e. 9100245853 were illegally tapped and his every moment was being observed. As he has got good image, refused to join in BRS party, contested as MLA from BSP party and highlighted the illegal activities done by the petitioner/A. I in Siddipet Constituency, A.l bore grudge against him by abusing his power as Minister, influenced and instructed some police official to tap his phones to observe his activities and got false cases booked against him. Therefore, 2nd respondent requested the police to do justice to him. He has also submitted the hard qopy of e-mail received from I-phone company to his e-mail for the purpose of invcstigation 18 KL.J Crl P. No.14861 012024

19. 2"'1 respondent has filed W.P.No.19502 of 2024 to declare the action of DGP in not conducting an enquiry with regard to the petitioner's phone tapping in pursuance of his representation dated

19.06.2024, as illegal. In the said affidavit also, he has stated about tapping of his phone. He has not made any allegation that the petitioner/A.l and A.2 harassed him. The said u rit petition was disrnissed as withdrawn on 22.11.2024. Thereafter, he has lodged a complaint with the police, Panjaguta only on 0l .12.2024. Evcn in the cornplaint also. his rnain grievance is with regard to tapping of phone, his suspicion was on A. L

20. lt is apt to note that in the statement given by hirn under Section l6l o1'Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024. dated 01.09.2024. he has not madc any allegation with regard to extortion, criminal breach of trust by public servant, criminal intimidation and cornputed related oll-enccs. There is no allegation with regard to olfence in tems of Section 66 of the l.T. Act. Even in the representation dated

19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in his statement recorded under Section l6l Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024, affidavit in W.P.No.19502 of 2024 and in thc cornplaint datcd 01.12.2024, there are no allegations with regard to e2rtorlion, criminal breach of trust by public servant, criminal l9 KI,,J Crl.l'. No.l486l of 2024 intimidation and computed related offences against the petitioner/A' 1 and A.2 by the 2nd respondent. The allegations are with regard to phone tapping. Absolutely, there is no whisper about the criminal breach of trust by public servant, extortion, criminal intimidation and computer related ofl-ences. 21 . In the light of the same, it is relevant to extract the following sections of IPC.

383. Extortion.- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induccs thc person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable sccurity, or anlhing signed or sealed which may be convertcd into a valuable security, commits "extortion". 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by bankcr, merchant or agent.- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted rvith propc(y, or with any dominion ovcr property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer-chant, factor, brokcr, attomey or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respcct of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of eithcr description for a term which may extend to tcn yoars, and shall also be liable to fine.

503. Criminal intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anv one in whom that person is .t r 20 KI,.J Crl P Nr, 14861of2024 - interested. \\ith inLcnt to causc alaml to that person, or to cause that person to do an1' acl which he is not legally bound to do- or to omit to do any act rvhich that pcrson is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding thc execution o1' such threat. commits oriminal intimidation

66. Computcr relaled offcnces. - lf any person. dishonestly or fraudulently' does any act referred to in scction 43. hc shall bc punishable with irnprisonment for a term which may cxtcnd to three year\ ol u'ith fine rvhich may extend to five lakh rupees or with both. Section {.1 of [T Acl.

43. Penalty and crtrnpensation for damage to computer, comPuter system, etc ' - lf any person rviLhoul pernrission of the owner or any other person w[]o is inchargc ol'a toml)trter. computer system or computer net\A'ork-- (a)acccsses or scctrres access to such computer, computer system or cornputer lrc{\\ ork or cotnputer resource; (b)douriloads. copres or extracts any data' computer data base or inlirrnration liont such computer, oomputer system or conlputer Iletwolk includinu inlirrntatiotr or data held or stored in any renrovable storirge mcdiutn: (c)intrrrdutc., (,r (ilUscs to bc itttroduced an1 computet conlamitlant or computer r irtts ittto anv cotnputer, computer system or computer network; (d)damages ()l catlscs to be damaged any computer, computer system or computcr Ilcl\\ork. data. comptltcr data base or any other programnlcs residing in sttch cotrputer- computer system or computer network; (c)disrupts or causcs disruption of any compuler' computcr systetn or computcr ncl\ ork: (f)denies or causos the denial of acccss to any person authorised to access an)' computcr. colullutcr s,\'stem or computer network by any tneans; ZI KI-.J Crl.P. No I4861 of2024 (g)provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention ofthe provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder; (h)charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network, (i)destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means; ()steal, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to stcal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to catrse damage; he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compcnsation to the person so t- 't{ affected.

22. In Salib @ Shalu @ Salim (supra), thc Apex Court dealt with the ingredients of extortion in terms of Sections 383 of IPC and punishment for extortion under Section 386 of IPC. The Apex Court held that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver 1o any person any propefty or valuable security etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not \) s 22 KI,.J Cd.P. No.l486l o12024 come undcr this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part u,ith the property by putting him in fear of injury. Illustrations to the Scction given in the IPC make this perfectly clear

23. On cxamination of the facts of the said case therein. nowhere thc t'irst informant has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs. l0 lakhs to thc accused persons. To put it in other words, there is nothing to indicate that there rvas actual delivery of possession of property (money) by, the pcrson put in fear. In the absence of anything to even ,{, remotelv su_sgest that the first informant parted with a particular amount altel being put to fcar of any injury, no offence under Section 386 oflP(l can be said to have been made out

24. In the said case, norvhere the first informant has stated that out of fear', she paid Rs.l0 laklrs to the accused persons. Thus, the Apex Coun hcld that thcre is nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery ol'possession o1'properly (money) by the person put in fear. In the abscnce of anything to even remotely suggest that the llrst inforrnant parted u.ith a particular amount after being put to fear of any irljury, no olfencc under Section 386 of IPC can be said to have been made out KL,J Crl P No 11861of2024

25. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal-'e'the Apex Court has also laid down cerlain guidelines/parameters for exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:- {i "(l) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifoing an investigation by police officers under Section I 56( I ) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section I 55(2) of thc Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose {he commission of any offencc and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated undcr Section 155(2) ofthe Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an exprcss legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions oi the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or } 1992 supp (l) SCC 335 i ( rl P. KT..J 14861 012024 ^-o \\l1crc therc is a specific provision in the Codc or Act conccrned. providing el'tlcacious redress lbr the qrievancc of the aggrieved party. (7) Whcrc a criminal procceding is manifestly attended u ith mala fide and/or wherc the proceeding is rnaliciousll inslitutcd with an ulterior motive for u'reaking vcngeancc on the accuscd and with a view to spite him duc to private and personal grudge." With the said li ndings, relying on the parameters laid down in Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court quashed the FIR against the accused thcleirr.

26. As discusscd supra, in the present case also, there ls no whisper/alle ga t icin a-eainst the petitioner herein that there was actual delivcry o1- posscssion of propefty/moncy by the petitioner herein by putting 2nd respondent defacto-complainant in fear. In the absence of the same, rcgistration ol ljlR lor the off'ence under Section 386 of IPC against the petitioncl is inipermissible and the same is liable to be quashed.

27. With regard to thc offcnce under Section 409 of IPC, there should be entrustlnent with ploperty or with.an) dominion over property in his capacity as a public servant. As discussed supra, in the present case, the petitioner did not whisper about the same in the complaint, dared 19.06.2024 subrnitted to DGP, in his statement KL,J Crl.P No 14861 of2024 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, in Cr.No.243 of 2024, in the writ affidavit in W.P.No.19602 of 2024 and in the complaint dated

01.12.2024. The allegation against the petitioner hereinl A.2 is only with regard to tapping of phone.

28. With regard to criminal intimidation, there should be threat with any injury, to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause harm to that person or to cause that person to do any act i which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is tegally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat amounts to criminal intimidation. As discussed supra, in the present case, there is no allegation of criminal intimidation in the representation dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and in writ affidavit in W.P.No.19502 of 2024. Eve.n in the complaint dated 01 .12.2024 subrnitted by 2nd respondent, there is no allegation with regard to computer related offences by the 2nd respondent in the same.

29.The petitioner in the said crime was in judicial custody from

29.08.2023 to 30.01.2025. The Investigating Offrcer has already completed investigation and laid charge sheei. The statement of 2nd 26 KI-,] Crl P No 14861 of2024 respondent hercin u,as recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in the said crin.re on 01.09.2024 itself as L.W.60.

30. ln the staterrent under Section l6l of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024. in the courplainl dated 01 .12.2024 of 2nd respondent, the allegations levcled against the petitioner herein are w,ith regard to the tapping ofhis phone.

31. lt is relevant to note that 2nd respondent was arested in several cases rnentioncd in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.l and 2 and hc was produced befbre learned Magistrates concemed. But lre never complained of alleged harassment by petitioner hercin and A.1..

32. As discusscd supra, the contents of complaint dated

01.12.2024 lacks thc ingredicnts of the albresaid offenccs, more particularly, thc ingredients of offences punishable under Section 386, 409, 506 of II)Cl and Scction 66 of the IT Act, i.e. extortion, crirninal breach of tr-r.rst by a public servant, criminal intimidation and computer related ol'fenccs.

33. It is rele.,,ant to note that there is abnormal delay in lodging complaint dated 01.12.2024 by the 2'd respondent. As discussed supra, even according to 2n'r respondent, policemen in civil clothes took him / , __- t 27 KT-,J crl.P. No I4lt6l ot2024 I to Panjagutta Police Station and produced before A'2 on 28'04'2023, he received message from Apple company on 29.08.2023. Whereas, he has submitted representation to DGP on 19.06.2024, filed writ petition on 15.07.2024. His statement in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was recorded onOl.09.2O24 and thereafter, he withdrew W.P.No. 19502 of 2024 on22.11.2024. He has lodged the present complaint with Police, Panjagutta on 01.12.2024. Thus, there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint against the petitioner herein. There is no explanation {- much less plausible explanation by the 2'd respondent with regard to the said delay.

34. During the course of hearing, leamed counsel appearing fbr 2nd respondent submitted that A. I was Cabinet Minister at that relevant point of time, A.2 has close acquaintance with A. I and therefore, out of fear, 2nd respondent did not todge comptaint against A. I and A.2. Thus, there is delaY.

35. lt is apt to note that there was change of power in the State ofTelangana in December, 2023 itself. Even then, 2nd respondent did not lodge complaint against petitioner/ A. I and A.2 immediately thereafter. He has submitted representation for the first time, only on i." I 28 KL.J (il.l, No.l486l ot2024

19.06.2024 to the DGIr. l-hus. rhere is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint against the petil.ioner and A.2.

36. With regard to the unexplained abnormal delay, the Apex Court in Hasmukhlal I). Vora r'. State of T.N.40

22.There has bcen a gap of morc than four ycars betu,een the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even alter lapse of substantial antount of time. uo evidence has been provided to sustain thc claims in the complaint. As helcl by this Court in Bijoy Singh r,. Stare 01'flihar [l]rjov Singh v. Starc of l]ihar, (2002) 9 SCC l-+7 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 10931 , inordinatc rtelay, if not reasonabiv cxplaitred. can be l'atal to the case of the prosecution. The rcleranr extracl fionr the judgmcnt is cxtracted below : (S(.(l p. 153. para 71 "7. ... Delav rvhelcver lbund is required to be explained b1, lhe proscoution. Il thc delay is reasonably explained, no adversc inlercnce can be drau,n but failure to explain thc delay wrruld require tht- ('our1 to lninutelv examine thc prosecution vcrsion lbr ensuring itsclf as to whether any innocent person lus becn implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to scck an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. It is always for the prosecution ro explain such a deial and if reasonable. plausiblc and sufflcient explanation is tcndered. no adverse in1'crence can be drarvn against it.,,

23. In the present case, thc respondent has provided no explanalion fbr the extrriordinary delay of more than four ycars between the initial sitc irrspection, the shor.l -cause notice, and thc complainr. Iu "' (2022)15/SCC tA+ o 29 KI,.J Crl P. No.l.{861 of2024 fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proccedings.

24. While inordinate delay in itself may not bc ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.

37. In Mudavath Jyothi vs. The State of. Telanganaar on consideration of the fact that there was delay of69 days in lodging the complaint and also considering other facts, quashed proceedings against the petitioner herein/A. 1

38. During the course of hearing. leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that 2nd respondent falsely implicated A. I in the present case with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. There is no dispute that A.l is a former Minister and Sitting MLA from Siddipet Constituency. 2nd respondent contestcd from the said Constituency against A.1 . There is politicat rivalry between A. I and 2nd respondent .

39. In the light of the said subrnission, it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hazi o' In Crl.P.No.6427 of20l9, dared o | .06.202 I of Telanllana High Court 30 KI-,J Crl P No la86l of2024 o lqbal @ Bala through SPOA vs. State of UPa2 and the sarte are as follows:-

15. At this stage, we would like to obscrve something important. Whencver ar accused courcs belbre the Court invoking either the inherent pou'ers under Section 482 ol the Code of Criminal Proccdure (Crl'C) or extraordinarl jurisdiction under Article 226 o[ the Constitution to get the FIR or the crirninal proccedings quashed essentially on the ground that such procecdings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motire tbr wreaking vengeance, thcn in such circumstances the qoun owcs rr dutv to look into the FIR with carc and a little more closely. [W1 say so hecausc once thc complainant decides to procced against the accuscd *-ith an ulterior motive for wreaking pcrsonal vengeance, elc., then he would cnsLrre that the FlR/conrplaint is very well drafted with all thc necessar) pltadings, Thc complainant would ensure that the avcments made in the IIR/complaint arc such that they disclose the neccssary ingrcdient5 to conslitute tl.re alleged offcnce. '] hcrelbrc, it u,ill not be just enough for thc Court to look into the averments made in tirc Flfucomplainl alone lbr the purpose o1 ascertaining whether thc necessary ingrcdients 1o constilutc thc.rllegcd olfeuce are disclosed or not. Ln fiivolous or r r.ratious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstanccs emcrging from tlre record of thc case over and above the averments and. i-f nced be. with due care and circumspection try to read in betwcen thc lineS.u The Clourt r.r'hilc excrcising its .iurisdiction under Section 482 of thc CrPC or.\rticle 226 ofthc Conslitution need not restrict itselfonll' to the stage of a casc but is enrpowered to take into account the overaU circumstances leading to thc initiation/rcgistration of the case as well as the materials collected in thc course of investigation. Iake for instance the case on hand. Multiple Filis havc been legistcred over a period of time. lt is in thc background ol such circumstanccs the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance. rhercby attracting the issue of wreaking veigeance out of privatc or personal grudgt: as allegcd.

16. In Statc ol' Andhra Pradesh v, Golconda Linga Su'arny, (2004) 6 SCC 522. a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of malerials the Iligh Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction bctwcen consideration of materials that were tendercd as evidencc and appreciation of such cvidence. Only such material that manifcstly lzrils to prove the accusation in thc IIR can be considelcd for quashing an IrlR.-fhe Court held:- o'tyfoot"d os.ott..to2i in crl.A No.2145 ot'2023 of the Apex court

1.I (. KL,J Crl P. No.1486lof2024 l|-' "5. ...Authority ofthe court exists for advancement ofjustice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action rvhich would result in injustice and prevent promotion ofjustice. In exercise of thc powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : I 960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised somc categories of cases wherc inherent power can and should be exerciscd to quash thc proceedings : (AIR p.869. para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information or complaint taken at its face value and accbpted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; 'report (iii) where the allegations constilute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last oategory, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidcnce which, on apprcciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the Itigh Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in quostion is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Cou( should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstanccs into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the 32 KI,.J Crl l'. No.l4E6l of2024 G secllon ts not an instrunlent handed over to an accused to shoft_circuit a prosecution and hring about its sudden death.....', (Emphasis supplied)

40. In rhc- light of the aforesaid findings ol the Apex Couft, coming to the lacts of case on hand, as discussed supra, the contents of the complaint dated 01 .12.2024 lodged with rhe p.S.panjagutta lacks ingredients of the offences atleged against the petitioner herein. This Court scrutinized rhe entire material including the representation dated 19.06.2024 of the petitioner submitted to DGp, his statement recorded under Section l6l Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and the affidavit tlied in W.P.No. 19502 of 2024.1'his Court of the view that the contents ol'tlre same lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against thc pctitioner herein. There is improved version in the complaint dated 0l .12.2024 by the 2nd respondent.

41. On consideration of the same, vide order dated 05.12.2024, this court directed the Investigating officer in the subject crime not to arrest the petitiont: r/A. I and investigation may go on.

42. As discussed supra, the complaint dated 01.12.2024 of 2"d respondent lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences, there is abnormal delar in lodging the said complaint, 2nd respondent failed to explain the same. On cornpletion of investigation, the Investigating d .. (\' JJ r,t,.J Crl.P. No I4861 o12024 Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and others vide P.R.C.No.260 of 2024.

43. It is apt to note Apex Court in Bhajanlal supra, laid down the aforesaid parameters to quash the proceedings by High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr'P.C.

44. In the light of the same, continuation of the proceedings in Cr.No.1205 of 2024 against the petitioner herein/A. I is an abuse of process of law and it cannot go on.

45. In the light of the above discussion, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in Cr.No. 1205 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S.Panjagutta, against the petitioner herein/A. I alone, are quashed' Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in these Criminal Petition shall stand closed Sd/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad. [OUT] l,TheXlVAdditionalchiefJudicialMagistrateatNampally,Hyderabad.. i. in" strtion House officer' Panjagutti Police Station' Hyderabad District' 5. i*"tcrto the pubtic proseclt6r, High Court for the state of relangana at + O'n" CC to Sri R.'Chand rashekar Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] S. One CC to Sri Goalla Seshadri' Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies a \a-, HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 ORDER CRLP.No.14861 of 2024 iriE sr.+r € ( 2 0 l,lAH 2[25 O * 1):':17,t ; i .,1 t ( ? ,[ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION s 11