ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed with the following prayer: “Pleased to quash the proceedings culminated by the cognizance order dated 21.12.2021 in C.C.No.2426 of 2021 on the file of Hon’ble II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad now C.C.No.5 of 2025 on the file of Hon’ble Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, at Manoranjan Court Complex, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the interest of the Justice.” 2. Heard Mr. T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents. 3. A Telugu written complaint dated 09.10.2017 (at Page No.31) came to be lodged in the rural police station, Nizamabad. It is case of the complainant that he is the Deputy General Manager of Venkata Sai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Channels named Media Vision, K6, Roshan News, are under his supervision. That Dr. R.Bhupathi Reddy (MLC), one Kanchetty Gangadharn of Mittapalli, Darpalli Sarpanch Gangadhar and others prepared a message (drafted), to disrepute the complainant personally and also to lower his uncle’s image (MLA of Nizamabad Rural Baji Reddy Govardhan). The local MLC posted the message on 07.10.2017 in WhatsApp groups (TRS MP group, TRS Party Nizamabad group and various Reddy groups): (i) In the complaint, it is stated that under the caption “Nizamabad rural Bajireddy Govardhan and Vaari Alludu Pintu intinti vasool rajakiyam” the message was posted in WhatsApp groups. It is further reflected in the complaint that the WhatsApp message forwarded in the groups also had the message that, “complainant himself, his uncle (MLA) and his son were collecting Rs.30/-, Rs.20/- from every house as rowdy mamool from Media Management in the Constituency, by threatening the management, thus, affecting business prospects and sending a wrong message to the public”. (ii) It is further stated that MLC and his followers (Dhoosgaam Chander Naik, Dr. Shadullah of Dichpalli, Keshapur Rajireddy and others) on 09.10.2017 at 12.00 hours gave a press conference in R&B guesthouse by leveling wrong allegations against me, my uncle (MLA), his son (Bajireddy Jagan) and thus disreputed our entire family, hence, have caused defamation (paruvu bhangam chesinaru) and also caused mental harassment by hatching a plot to disrepute, hence, the complaint. Shadullah of Dichpalli, Keshapur Rajireddy and others) on 09.10.2017 at 12.00 hours gave a press conference in R&B guesthouse by leveling wrong allegations against me, my uncle (MLA), his son (Bajireddy Jagan) and thus disreputed our entire family, hence, have caused defamation (paruvu bhangam chesinaru) and also caused mental harassment by hatching a plot to disrepute, hence, the complaint. (iii) On the basis of the complaint, an entry was made in the general diary, the petition was forwarded to the II Additional JFCM Court, Nizamabad on 17.10.2017, permission was obtained to register a case and crime No.280 of 2017 under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC came to be registered and investigation was taken up. Charge sheet is dated 09.11.2021. Charge sheet speaks in the same words as that of complaint. Perused the statements of witnesses examined by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners/accused that the ingredients of the Sections are not made out on a perusal of the complaint. That, there is no specific allegation as to who actually posted the message in the group. It is further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint, and the delay in forwarding the complaint by the Police also cannot be ignored. It is also contended that if the ingredients of the Sections are not forthcoming from the complaint, it would be an abuse of process of law, if proceedings are allowed to continue. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 invited the attention of this Court to the order of learned Single Judge in Crl.P.No.3229 of 2025, dated 10.04.2025. By drawing attention to Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the learned Single Judge’s order, it is submitted that in view of the order the present criminal petition has to suffer the same fate as that of Crl.P.No.3229 of 2025. It is also submitted that as the proceedings arise out of the same complaint and the same set of facts, this criminal petition be allowed. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State has contended that the contents of the complaint speak of the ingredients of Sections charged against the accused and hence, the offences are made out. It is further submitted that a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the quash petition filed by accused No.1 for the same set of allegations and offences charged. It is further submitted that a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the quash petition filed by accused No.1 for the same set of allegations and offences charged. 7. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 8. On the basis of the complaint dated 09.10.2017, a requisition was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Nizamabad, before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases. The Court on 16.10.2017 in C.C.No.5 of 2025 in Crime No.280 of 2017, passed the cognizance order permitting to register the case and investigate the matter. 9. On a perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the complainant has alleged the accused posted WhatsApp messages in groups under the caption “Nizamabad rural Bajireddy Govardhan and Vaari Alludu Pintu intinti vasool rajakiyam.” That three of them i.e., himself, his uncle (MLA) and his son were collecting Rs.30/-, Rs.20/- from every house as rowdy mamool from Media Management by threatening the management, thus, sending a wrong message to the public. That thus they caused damage to their reputation and have defamed them with an intent. 10. On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that on 07.10.2017 (Saturday) the WhatsApp message was posted by one Dr. R.Bhupathi Reddy in TRS MP group, TRS Party Nizamabad group and different Reddy community groups. It is further reflected in the complaint that a press conference was held on 09.10.2017 and allegations were levelled against them, thus, defaming their family. 11. It is trite to extract the relevant Sections. Section 503 of IPC is as follows: “ 503. Criminal intimidation.— 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. Explanation.— A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. 12. Section 504 of IPC is as follows: “ 504. Explanation.— A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. 12. Section 504 of IPC is as follows: “ 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. 13. Section 506 of IPC is as follows: “ 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— 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 1[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.” 14. On a perusal of the contents of the complaint, it is apparent that none of the ingredients of the sections extracted supra, can be put against the accused herein. IN the absence of any ingredients spelled out in the complaint the offences under Sections have not been made out against the accused Nos.2 to 5. 15. It is trite to note that even as per the complaint the allegation of forwarding (uploading) the message in WhatsApp groups was done by Dr. R.Bhupathi Reddy (MLC), there is no mention that the accused herein (A2 to A5) have forwarded (uploaded) the message in the groups. If the message is forwarded by Dr. Bhupathi Reddy, in the WhatsApp groups, the accused herein cannot be held liable. 16. It is also observed that the complaint is lodged with a delay i.e., on 09.10.2017, whereas the message is posted on 07.10.2017, there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay in respect of posting of the message. If the message is forwarded by Dr. Bhupathi Reddy, in the WhatsApp groups, the accused herein cannot be held liable. 16. It is also observed that the complaint is lodged with a delay i.e., on 09.10.2017, whereas the message is posted on 07.10.2017, there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay in respect of posting of the message. The main grievance is with regard to uploading the message and causing damage to the reputation of the complainant and two others on the ground that they were collecting mamool of Rs.30/- and Rs.20/-. When the entire message is said to be uploaded by Dr. Bhupathi Reddy, it defies the logic of this Court as to how the accused Nos.2 to 5 are said to have caused damage to the reputation. 17. The complaint in respect of press conference is that it is held on 09.10.2017. That the MLC, Dhoosgaam Chander Naik, Dr. Shadullah of Dichpalli, Keshapur Rajireddy and others, have levelled allegations against the three of them and have caused damage and defamed the family. There is no whisper about any specific allegations that petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 have made any statements causing damage. It is merely stated in the complaint that all have levelled allegations, it is a generalised statement without any specifics. There is no reference to the nature of allegations made by accused Nos.2 to 5. In the absence of any specific allegations in the complaint that petitioners/accused herein have caused damage to the reputation, defamed the complainant and others, no offences can be attracted. 18. This Court also cannot ignore the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Crl.P.No.3229 of 2025, dated 10.04.2025, filed by accused No.1. The following are the relevant Paragraphs of the order of learned Single Judge: “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 2nd 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. In the present case, even if the allegations made by the 2nd 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 U.P. 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. 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. 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. 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. L.J. 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. 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. 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.” 19. This Court has perused the order of learned Single Judge. The complaint, the FIR and charge sheet and statements recorded are same. The allegations against the accused herein do not attract the ingredients of the Sections charged with, as spoken supra and reasoned out. This Court is also of the view that the delay in lodging the complaint is not forthcoming and a further delay in making the requisition before the competent Court is also not spelled out. On this count, this Court agrees with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. 20. Having considered the submissions and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the continuation of proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, would amount to an abuse of process of law and proceedings are liable to be quashed. 21. Proceedings in C.C.No.2426 of 2021 on the file of Hon’ble II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad now C.C.No.5 of 2025 on the file of Hon’ble Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, at Manoranjan Court Complex, Hyderabad, qua petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 5 are accordingly quashed. 22. For reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.