Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1841 (TS)

Ganji Sai Teja v. State of Telangana

2025-12-16

JUVVADI SRIDEVI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal 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 Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at LB Nagar (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offences under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Sri Nandipally Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1 as well as Sri Srinivasa Srikanth, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3. (a) The brief facts of the case are that the accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant-respondent No.2. The accused No.1 got acquaintance with the respondent No.2 at Brahmakumari Organization and developed close relation with her. The accused No.1 was already married with another women and having a son and a daughter. It is alleged that the accused No.1 stated to the respondent No.2 that he had divorced with his wife and the daughter was staying with her and the son i.e. the petitioner-accused No.2 was staying with him, and married the respondent No.2 on 25.03.2010 and they led marital life. They did medical business. (b) It is further alleged that in the year 2020, the respondent No.2 suffered from ill-health and, on that ground, stayed at her parental house. During her absence, the 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. It 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 action against the accused. 4. 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. Hence, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint seeking necessary action against the accused. 4. 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 their entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to attract the alleged offences under Sections 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full- fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to refer Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, which reads as under: “ 504 . Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 506 . Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two 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;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.” 7. 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. It is evident from the record that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.03.2010 and since then they resided together, along with the petitioner-accused No.2. 8. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that, in the year 2020, the accused No.1 along with his first wife, performed the marriage of their daughter, whereupon the respondent No.2 questioned the accused No.1 in that regard, which allegedly led to the accused No.1 abusing and assaulting her, as a result of which she left the matrimonial home and returned to her parents’ house. It is further alleged that the accused No.1 transferred certain amounts from the joint account maintained by himself and the respondent No.2 to his personal savings account. Initially, the case was registered against fifteen persons, namely the accused Nos.1 to 15; however, upon completion of the investigation, the names of thirteen persons were deleted from the array of accused. Upon a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, there are no specific acts or averments attributing intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace or criminal intimidation on the part of the petitioner-accused No.2 as against the respondent No.2. 9. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Upon a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, there are no specific acts or averments attributing intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace or criminal intimidation on the part of the petitioner-accused No.2 as against the respondent No.2. 9. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 SCC (SUPP 1)  335 the Honourable Supreme Court held that: “In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 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 the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying 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; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence 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 under Section 155(2) of the 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 express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. In the present case, the alleged incidents pertain to the year 2020. It appears that the respondent No.2 was primarily aggrieved by the conduct of the accused No.1, particularly with regard to the transfer of certain amounts from the joint account to his personal account, which appears to have prompted the respondent No.2 to lodge the present complaint. Initially, 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 any real or reasonable apprehension for her life, limb, or property. Therefore, the essential ingredients 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 disclose the commission of any offence so as to 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). Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of process of law and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in C.C.No.4238 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at LB Nagar, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.