ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No.16 of 2025 of Kothaguda Police Station, Mahabubabad District. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said crime. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 296 (b), 352 r/w.3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 lodged a report before police stating that on 02.03.2025 at about 2.00 hours, in whats ap group of their village great Konapur, the accused Nos.1 and 2 uploaded a post from their mobile phones against him stating that “Vaadu Veedu”. Having observed the said message in group, when he called accused No.2, over phone in the afternoon and questioned him why they have uploaded the said message, then he scolded him in phone and insulted him by uploading messages against him stating ‘”Vaadu Veedu”. Hence, requested to take action against the accused. Basing on the complaint, the police registered a case against the accused for the above offences. 3. Heard Sri Padma Rao G.S. Lakkaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent of the said offences. Respondent No.2 is Village President, whereas, petitioner No.1 is in charge of Indira Kranti Patham which is a political appointment made by the immediate previous Government. The respondent No.2 was pressurizing petitioner No.1 to resign and leave the village for which petitioner No.1 refused to do so. He further contended that Konapur village had a whatsap group to communicate among the villagers which also includes request, questioning somebody’s action and reasonable criticism. There was an article in Andhra Prabha in which it was questioning the action of Government of Telangana in not disbursing the bonus as promised by them. The said article was posted by petitioner No.1 in whatsap group and certain villagers have supported petitioner No.1 and one of the group member abused petitioner No.1 questioning the posting of such article, wherein petitioner No.1 replied in equal terms. The said article was posted by petitioner No.1 in whatsap group and certain villagers have supported petitioner No.1 and one of the group member abused petitioner No.1 questioning the posting of such article, wherein petitioner No.1 replied in equal terms. Further, out of anxiety petitioner No.2 has posted in the group whether the message was posted questioning the posting of article is at the behest of respondent No.2 by saying ‘Veedu” indicating the respondent No.2 and later advised petitioner No.1 to stop messaging in the group. He further contended that offence under Section 296 (b) of BNS which addresses obscene acts and songs in public places. This section penalizes individuals who perform obscene acts in public or sing, recite, or utter obscene words near a public place, with punishment extending to imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both. Additionally, Section 352 of BNS pertains to acts intended to insult someone with the aim of provoking a breach of peace. It states that anyone who intentionally insults another person, provoking them to break public peace or commit another offense, shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years, or fine, or both. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these provisions do not apply to the present case, as the FIR does not contain any offense under these sections. The petitioners argue that the criminal proceedings against them are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to threaten Petitioner No.1 to make him resign from his job. If respondent No.2 felt defamed by the acts of petitioners, he has to file defamation case, but not the criminal case. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. Though notice served on respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are allegations against the petitioners, the case is at initial stage and it requires investigation. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the alleged offences do not attract to the petitioners and requested the Court to dismiss this petition. 8. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there are allegations against the petitioners, the case is at initial stage and it requires investigation. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the alleged offences do not attract to the petitioners and requested the Court to dismiss this petition. 8. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the allegations against the petitioners herein is that they used words “Vaadu Veedu” against the complainant, when he enquired about the same, A.2 scolded in abusive language and there is no obscenity and as per the complaint, to attract Sections 296 (b) and 352 of BNS, there must be allegation to show that petitioners intentionally insulted by provoking them to cause breach of peace and the allegations herein is only personal in nature and there is no intention to provoke the petitioners aiming breach of peace. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any of those offences. Therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R. No.16 of 2025 of Kothaguda Police Station, Mahabubabad District are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.