ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.3603 of 2021 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Mr. Chekuri Yadagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Yogitha Prakash, learned counsel, representing Mr. Sunil B Ganu, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 3. Brief facts of the case: 3.1. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 22.06.2021 at 17-45 hours before the Station House Officer, Karkhana Station, stating that she has been continuously stalked by three phone numbers on WhatsApp and received messages since March, 2019 and that recently also she received similar kind of messages from the above mentioned numbers and the pattern of the messages is the same and therefore, it is very clear that someone is stalking her for a long period and there is a likelihood that in the near future an incident may happen with the complainant, which may cost her life and dignity. Based on the above said complaint, the present crime was registered for the above mentioned offences. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 has not made any allegation against the petitioner and the name of the petitioner was also not mentioned in the complaint and the entire allegations are levelled against one Abhishek Dhaka. In the charge sheet also, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. In her statement also, she suspects that Abhishek Dhaka was sending the messages in the name of Sourav Jain @ Saurav Raidhani. The petitioner has never sent any messages through his phone nor stalking respondent No.2 in any manner. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of LW.1 only. The allegations made in the complaint and the statement recorded before the Investigating Officer, are one and the same. The Investigating Officer has not recovered any material while conducting investigation. The petitioner has never sent any messages through his phone nor stalking respondent No.2 in any manner. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of LW.1 only. The allegations made in the complaint and the statement recorded before the Investigating Officer, are one and the same. The Investigating Officer has not recovered any material while conducting investigation. Thus, the ingredients for the offence under Sections 354(D) and 509 of IPC do not attract against the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon Redapaka Raja Bhupal v. The State of Telangana , 2025 Supreme (Online) (Tel) 11364. 5. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be revealed after full-fledged trial only. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 received WhatsApp messages through three different mobile numbers. The said messages were already handed over to the Investigating Officer. At the time of trial, the prosecution will submit electronic records and other relevant documents and that stage has not been reached. He further submitted that the role of the petitioner was specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. Hence, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 354(D) and 509 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing the proceedings at this stage. Analysis: 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 22.06.2021. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that she is receiving WhatsApp messages through three different mobile numbers and she suspected that Abhishek Dhaka was sending the messages in the name of Sourav Jain @ Saurav Raidhani. It is relevant to mention that respondent No.2 has not made any allegations against the petitioner and his name was not mentioned in the complaint. The Final Report reveals that the Investigating Officer has not seized the mobile of the petitioner and respondent No.2, nor collected the information and the Investigating Officer in the Final Report has stated that LW.1 will submit electronic records and other relevant documents during the course of trial. The Final Report reveals that the Investigating Officer has not seized the mobile of the petitioner and respondent No.2, nor collected the information and the Investigating Officer in the Final Report has stated that LW.1 will submit electronic records and other relevant documents during the course of trial. In the absence of any material recovered during the course of the investigation, the petitioner was implicated for the offence under Section 354D IPC. 7. It is relevant to extract the offence under Section 354(D) of IPC, which reads as follows: “354D. Stalking.— (1) Any man who— (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking: Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that— (i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; (ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; (iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.” 8. A plain reading of the complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that there are no specific overt acts or involvement of the petitioner in the above said offence. To attract the offence under Section 509 of IPC, there should be intention to insult the modesty of any woman, and in the said process utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman. In the case on hand, there are no words stated in the complaint. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ingredients of Section 509 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner. 9. In Redapaka Raja Bhupal supra, this Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner therein, in C.C. No. 1989 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, and 506 of IPC. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the ingredients of Section 509 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner. 9. In Redapaka Raja Bhupal supra, this Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner therein, in C.C. No. 1989 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, and 506 of IPC. This Court observed that the allegations made by the complainant, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police, primarily pertained to monetary transactions and did not disclose any acts constituting sexual harassment, stalking, or criminal intimidation, this Court held that even if the allegations in the charge sheet were taken at face value, they did not prima facie make out any offence against the petitioner and that the proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fides. Consequently, this Court held that continuation of the criminal case would amount to abuse of process of law and quashed the same. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends of justice. 11. For the foregoing reasons and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal and Geddam Jhansi (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.3603 of 2021 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.