ORDER : (K. LAKSHMAN, J.) On 05.03.2025 this Court ordered notice to respondent No.2 and personal notice was also permitted. In compliance with the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo vide U.S.R.No.33815 of 2025 dated 25.03.2025 along with returned cover with an endorsement “No such person in this address”. Therefore, this Court directed the investigating officer in Crime No.280 of 2017 to serve notice on the 2 nd respondent and file proof of service. On 04.04.2025 learned Additional Public Prosecutor informed this Court that the investigating officer in the subject crime went to the residence of respondent No.2 to serve notice in compliance with the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, but the door was locked. On enquiry, he came to know that respondent No.2 was in Pondicherry. He sought time to serve notice personally. 2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Rural Police Station, has filed an affidavit stating that pursuant to the letter received from the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 27.03.2025, he made phone calls to respondent No.2 on 27.03.2025 and finally at 05:28 PM, respondent No.2 attended the phone call and informed him that he is out of state along with his family and he is at Puducherry on his personal work. The Sub-Inspector of Police informed about the pendency of the present criminal petition and posting of the case on 04.04.2025. The Sub-Inspector of Police has also enquired about the arrival of 2 nd respondent to Nizamabad. 2 nd respondent did not give proper answer. Therefore, the Sub-Inspector of Police has deputed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and P.C.No.1720 to the house of 2 nd respondent situated at Mubarak Nagar, Nizamabad, but the door was locked. He has also filed screenshot of whatsapp extract sent to 2 nd respondent. Thus despite knowledge, 2 nd respondent did not enter appearance. 3. Heard Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. 4. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for Short “BNSS”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Manoranjan Court Complex, at Nampally, Hyderabad. Petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. 5. Petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. 5. On the complaint lodged by 2 nd respondent dated 09.10.2017 police Nizamabad Rural have registered a case in Crime No.280 of 2017 on 17.10.2017 against the petitioner herein. As per the said complaint, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are as follows: (i) He was working as Telangana Region DGM in Venkatasai Entertainment Private Limited. Media Vision, Kesix, Roshan News Channels of the said organization are running under his supervision. The said Channels are most popular local channels in Nizamabad District. (ii) Unable to digest their organization development day by day, the petitioner herein along with Kanchetty Gangadhar of Mittapalli, Darpalli Sarpanch Gangadhar and others prepared a wrong message to be sent on Whatsapp to give a wrong signal to the public to cause harm to their organization, personally the complainant and his uncle who is Sri Bajireddy Govardhan, MLA, Nizamabad Rural. (iii) On 07.10.2017 (Saturday), in Whatsapp Groups, especially TRS MP Group, TRS Party Nizamabad Group and also various Reddy Groups under the caption “Nizamabad Rural Bajireddy Govardhan & Vaari Alludu Pintu Intinti Vasool Rajakeeyam” publicizing Rural MLA Bajireddy Govardhan and respondent No.2 herein threatened the Electronic Media Owners (MSOs) of the rural constituency by making false postings and threatening the Media Managements (MSO) to pay Rs.30, Rs.20 per month towards rowdy Mamool from each house in the constituency to the Rural MLA Bajireddy and respondent No.2 herein. (iv) They are harassing him mentally by taking their names and also cheating by misleading the public to damage their business. (v) On 09.10.2017, the petitioner herein, his followers, Dr. Shadulla of Dippalli, Rajireddyi of Keshapur village and others conducting a meeting with journalists at R&B Guest House and made false accusations against respondent No.2 and his uncle Bajireddy Govardhan and Bajireddy Jagan. 6. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and 5 others. During the course of investigation, investigating officer recorded the statement of 2 nd respondent as LW-1, Sri Suram Harish Kumar as LW-2. 2 nd respondent has reiterated the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner herein as alleged in the complaint dated 09.10.2017. LW-2 also stated in the very same lines of LW-1. 7. During the course of investigation, investigating officer recorded the statement of 2 nd respondent as LW-1, Sri Suram Harish Kumar as LW-2. 2 nd respondent has reiterated the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner herein as alleged in the complaint dated 09.10.2017. LW-2 also stated in the very same lines of LW-1. 7. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein and others vide order dated 16.10.2017. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that the contents of complaint dated 09.10.2017 and statements of LW-1 and LW-2 recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C lack the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. 9. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that Section 503 of IPC deals with ‘criminal intimidation’ and the same is extracted as under: “ 503 . Whoever threatens another 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 alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.” 10. Section 504 of IPC deals with ‘intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace’ and the same is extracted as under: “ 504. 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.” 11. Section 506 of IPC deals with ‘punishment for criminal intimidation’ and the same is extracted as under: “ 506. Section 506 of IPC deals with ‘punishment for criminal intimidation’ and the same is extracted as under: “ 506. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment 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, of 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.” 12. To attract offence under Section 504 of IPC, there should be intention to insult thereby which cause provocation to any person intending or knowing it to likely such provocation will cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In the present case, even if the allegations made by the 2 nd respondent in the complaint dated 09.10.2017 are considered to be true, the same are lacking the ingredients for the offence under Section 504 of IPC. 13. It is also apt to note that as per the complaint of respondent No.2, the alleged incident was on 07.10.2017, respondent No.2 lodged complaint with police on 09.10.2017 and the police, P.S. Nizamabad has registered the subject crime only on 17.10.2017. There is no explanation for the said delay. 14. In Hazi Iqbal @ Bala through SPOA vs. State of UP, Order dated 08.08.2023 in Crl.A.No.2345 of 2023 of the Apex Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 16. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:- “5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice 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 which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice 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 which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the 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 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the 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 report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute 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 category, 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 evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question 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. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances 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 section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..” (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, coming to the case on hand, the contents of complaint dated 09.10.2017 and statements of LW-1 and LW-2 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. There is unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and registration of crime. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad is an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 16. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein - accused No.1 alone. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition stand closed.