Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 118 (TS)

Miss Nikita More v. State of Telangana

2025-03-13

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

body2025
ORDER : Anil Kumar Jukanti, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.1433 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The offences alleged against petitioners are under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Mr. Sarthak Godiyal, learned counsel representing learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State. Perused the material on record. 3. An FIR.No.370 of 2024, dated 06.06.2024, was lodged in Neredmet Police Station, on the basis of a complaint referred by the I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Medchal-Malkajgiri District, vide Lr.Dis.No.601 of 2024, dated 10.05.2024. A criminal complaint was lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C., for offences under Sections 420, 383, 406, 120-B and 506 of IPC. Respondent No.2 prayed the Court to refer the above complaint to the Neredmet Police Station, requesting to register an FIR against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. 4. The gist of the complaint is that petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2 are classmates while studying at college. That accused No.1 proposed love to respondent No.2 in the month of January, 2022. But respondent No.2 refused proposal and maintained a neutral relationship. It is further stated in the complaint that accused No.1 filed a false complaint against respondent No.2 before the Neredmet Police Station vide Cr.No.436 of 2023, dated 15.05.2023, under Section 376(2)(n), 417, 420 and 312 of IPC. On the basis of the said complaint, respondent No.2 was sent to judicial remand for a period of 33 days and thereafter released on bail. 5. It is stated in the complaint that accused No.1 along with her mother/accused No.2 and her sister (an advocate)/accused No.3 started threatening respondent No.2 to clear their financial debts. It is further stated that respondent No.2 was made a scapegoat and that he was honey trapped. After judicial remand, petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 threatened and abused respondent No.2 in filthy language. It is further stated that the complaint lodged earlier by accused No.1 is a false complaint and that petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are threatening respondent No.2 that they will implicate him and his family members in further cases, if respondent No.2 does not marry accused No.1. It is further stated that the complaint lodged earlier by accused No.1 is a false complaint and that petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are threatening respondent No.2 that they will implicate him and his family members in further cases, if respondent No.2 does not marry accused No.1. That on 04.02.2024, accused No.1 blackmailed respondent No.2 to marry her. That respondent No.2 received a call from his friend that accused No.1 tried to commit suicide and immediately respondent No.2 went to accused No.1’s home and took her to hospital. 6. That on 10.04.2024, at 4:00 p.m., accused No.1 came to respondent No.2’s house, but the house was locked and accused No.1 tried to break open the lock of respondent No.2’s house, (information from neighbours). That he went to Kushaiguda Police Station and tried to lodge a complaint against accused, but, Police refused to register. It is further stated in the complaint that on 10.04.2024, at 10:30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 along with Mahila Sangam members came to the house of respondent No.2 at Neredmet and created ruckus, demanded money and damaged the reputation of respondent No.2 and his family members. Immediately respondent No.2 dialed 112 and complained by the time Police reached there, that all the persons left threatening him. It is also stated that on 11.04.2024, respondent No.2 approached Neredmet Police Station, but the Police did not entertain the complaint. As the Neredmet Police Station did not register respondent No.2’s complaint, he was forced to address a complaint to the Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 7. Charge sheet is filed on 29.07.2024, for offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC. In the charge sheet, it is stated that petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 came to the house of respondent No.2 and threatened him with dire consequences. It is further stated that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were to get married, however, due to differences, marriage could not take place and that a case in Cr.No.436 of 2023 was filed by accused No.1 against respondent No.2. On basis of the said complaint, respondent No.2 was sent to judicial remand for a period of 33 days. It is further observed that on release on bail, accused No.1 threatened respondent No.2 to marry her and demanded amounts to compromise the case. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to accused No.1 by respondent No.2 through Phonepe. 8. On basis of the said complaint, respondent No.2 was sent to judicial remand for a period of 33 days. It is further observed that on release on bail, accused No.1 threatened respondent No.2 to marry her and demanded amounts to compromise the case. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to accused No.1 by respondent No.2 through Phonepe. 8. When this Court queried learned counsel for petitioners about the stage of the case, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the case is at summons stage. It is further submitted that on the website of trial Court, it is reflected that summons have been issued. 9. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were in love from year 2022 and that they were college mates. That Cr.No.436 of 2023 was registered and respondent No.2 was sent to judicial remand for a period of 33 days. It is further submitted that accused No.1 was pregnant twice and respondent No.2 coerced for terminating the pregnancies and accused No.1 was reluctant to get married to respondent No.2, that she was forced to lodge a complaint for the acts of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is trying to implicate them in false case to create fear in the minds of petitioners so as to withdraw the Sessions Case No.779 of 2023. 10. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that it is a Court referred complaint and an FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint referred by the trial Court and the charge sheet is filed. Hence, no interference is necessitated in this case and the proceedings be permitted to go on. 11. Heard learned counsel, perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 12. Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 developed friendship from November, 2021. Both started messaging and chatting on social media platform (Facebook). Respondent No.2 proposed accused No.1 initially. When she rejected, respondent No.2 came and met accused No.2, who is mother of accused No.1. Later accused No.1 accepted proposal of respondent No.2 and both moved closely. In the month of March, 2022 both were in physical relationship, accused No.1 got pregnant, on 15.10.2022 accused No.1 was forced to terminate her pregnancy by respondent No.2 and later he started maintaining distance from accused No.1. Later accused No.1 accepted proposal of respondent No.2 and both moved closely. In the month of March, 2022 both were in physical relationship, accused No.1 got pregnant, on 15.10.2022 accused No.1 was forced to terminate her pregnancy by respondent No.2 and later he started maintaining distance from accused No.1. Hence, accused No.1 lodged a complaint against respondent No.2 registered as Cr.No.436 of 2023, dated 15.05.2023 and after investigation, charge sheet is filed on 28.05.2023. 13. In the charge sheet, it is reflected that respondent No.2 physically abused accused No.1 and accused No.1 became pregnant, later her pregnancy was terminated. The present criminal petition is field on the complaint referred by the trial Court. In the complaint, it is averred that on 10.04.2024, accused No.1 along with her mother/accused No.2 and her sister/accused No.3 visited respondent No.2’s house and threatened him with dire consequences. It is further averred that accused Nos.1 to 3 came along with Mahila Sangam members at night 10:30 p.m., and created a ruckus and damaged respondent No.2 and his family members’ reputation. From the charge sheet, it is observed that there is no whisper about the acquisition that accused Nos.1 to 3 came along with Mahila Sangam members. Respondent No.2 was charged for the offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 420 and 312 of IPC when respondent No.2 was residing in Plot No.162, Gowdapuri Colony, Kapra Village and Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District. Later, respondent No.2 had shifted his residence to Shiva Nagar, Sanikpuri, Hyderabad. It was the specific contention of learned counsel for petitioners that respondent No.2 has cleverly shifted his residence and filed the complaint as a counter case to coerce accused Nos.1 to 3 to withdraw Sessions Case No.779 of 2023. 14. In the present case complaint is addressed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., referred by the trial Court. In the charge sheet Sections 420 and 506 of IPC are reflected. 15. To attract Section 420 of IPC, ingredients of Section have to be fulfilled. Section 420 of IPC read as follows: “ 420. 14. In the present case complaint is addressed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., referred by the trial Court. In the charge sheet Sections 420 and 506 of IPC are reflected. 15. To attract Section 420 of IPC, ingredients of Section have to be fulfilled. Section 420 of IPC read as follows: “ 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited v. State of Bihar , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2995] held that for bringing out the offence under Section 420 of IPC, the FIR must disclose the following ingredients: 1. That the petitioner induced respondent No.2 since inception 2. That the said inducement was fraudulent or dishonest 3. That mens rea existed at the time of inducement These ingredients are to be made out from complaint. 17. On a perusal of the entire record, it can be inferred that the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are not made out. Once the ingredients are not made out, Section is not attracted. 18. Section 506 of IPC read as follows: “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; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 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.” 19. It is averred in the complaint that on 10.04.2024, petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 came to the residence of respondent No.2 and threatened him with dire consequences and it is further averred that at night 10:30 p.m., on 10.04.2024, petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 along with Mahila Sangam members came to the premises of respondent No.2 and threatened respondent No.2. However, in the charge sheet, there is no whisper with regard to allegation that petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 visited residence of respondent No.2 along with Mahila Sangam members. In the absence of such statements being recorded in the charge sheet on investigation, it can be held that respondent No.2 only with an intention to create fear in the minds of petitioners to withdraw Sessions Case No.779 of 2023 is a valid contention. If at all respondent No.2 wanted to file a complaint that accused No.1 cheated and dishonestly induced, he could have done so at the earliest point of time, but no compliant was lodged. The investigating officer has not stated anything regarding the incident having occurred at 10:30 p.m, on 10.04.2024. 20. It is apparent from the contents of the complaint that it is frivolous in nature as the ingredients of the Sections are not made out. The proceedings in CC.No.1433 of 2024 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 21. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.