Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 141 (TS)

B. Gayathri v. B. Jagan Mohan Rao and Other

2026-01-22

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2026
ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.1567 of 2018 on the file of learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2018, the de facto complainant filed complaint stating that on 14.04.2018, between 7:00 PM and 7:30 PM, the petitioner came to his apartment and asked to meet him to discuss some apartment-related issues, as he is the secretary of the apartment and the watchman informed her that the he was not available at that time and that he would be available only in the morning. On the next day on 15.04.2018, at about 12:00 noon, she again came to the apartment and met him. When the he asked her about the issue and why she wanted to discuss it with him, she started using abusive language and threatened that she would send one Rajkumar and his family to jail. She further stated that she would do anything to achieve this. When the Secretary questioned her behaviour, she replied that since he was the Secretary of the apartment where Rajkumar and his family were residing, she was informing him. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.171 of 2018 was registered by the Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad District, against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet before the IV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences and numbered the case as C.C.No.1567 of 2018. 3. Heard Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ratnesh Raju Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 -State. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and she has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident has occurred on 15.04.2018, whereas, respondent No.2 filed complaint on 27.06.2018 with a lapse of more than 2 months without assigning any reasons. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident has occurred on 15.04.2018, whereas, respondent No.2 filed complaint on 27.06.2018 with a lapse of more than 2 months without assigning any reasons. 4.1 He further submitted that the petitioner only said that one Rajkumar is a fake doctor and requested respondent no.1 to remove him from the apartment. He further submitted that the said Rajkumar was already in judicial custody on the date of alleged incident. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC do not attract. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. 4.2 In support his contention he has relied upon the following judgments: i) B.V.Ram Kumar v State of Telangana and Ors. , 2025 (1) ALD (Crl.) 536 (SC) ii) Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka , 2015 (1) ACR 659 (SC) iii) A.M.Mohan V. The State represented by SHO and Ors. , 2024 (263) AIC 115 iv) Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The state of Uttarpradesh and Anr. , 2025 LiveLaw(SC) 880 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently contended that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 29.02.2024 and she was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., where she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Pursuant to the same, the matter was posted for trial. He further submitted that due to behavior of the petitioner’s daughter, the proceedings before the trial Court were stalled on 02.06.2025. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief of quashing the proceedings. 5.1 He further submitted that the judgments which were relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. 5.1 He further submitted that the judgments which were relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the incident took place on 15.04.2018, whereas the complaint was lodged on 27.06.2018, after a delay of more than two months, for which no proper explanation has been given. Further, the complaint does not mention the specific abusive or threatening words used by the petitioner and the allegations are vague and general in nature. Such general allegations, without details of the exact words or conduct, do not fulfill the essential requirements of Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In B.V. Ram Kumar supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an offence under Section 504 IPC requires an intentional insult coupled with the intention or knowledge that such insult is likely to provoke a breach of public peace, and that mere abuse, rudeness or discourtesy, without the requisite mens rea, does not attract the said provision. Similarly in Manik Taneja supra, it was held that an offence under Section 506 IPC is made out only when there is a clear threat of injury to person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm or to compel the victim to act or omit an act which he or she is legally entitled to do. Further, in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding parameters for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the material placed by the accused is of sterling quality and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. In A.M. Mohan supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court may quash proceedings where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence, while cautioning that such power must be exercised sparingly to secure the ends of justice. 9. In the light of the above legal principles, the allegations against the petitioner are confined to a verbal exchange during the meeting on 15.04.2018. 9. In the light of the above legal principles, the allegations against the petitioner are confined to a verbal exchange during the meeting on 15.04.2018. Even from the perusal of the complaint and charge- sheet, it does not disclose any intentional insult with the requisite, mens rea, likely to provoke a breach of public peace, nor do they reveal any specific or clear threat intended to cause alarm so as to attract Sections 504 or 506 of IPC. In terms of the parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani supra and A.M. Mohan supra continuation of the proceedings in C.C. No.1567 of 2018 would amount to an abuse of process of law. 10. Insofar as the contention made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner appeared before the trial Court for examination under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, and hence, petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings, is concerned, this Court is not entitled to accept the said submission on the ground that merely pleading not guilty before the trial Court is not a ground for seeking dismissal of the present criminal petition. 11. For the foregoing reasons as well as in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, this Court is of the view that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are clear abuse of the process of law. 12. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in C.C.No.1567 of 2018 on the file of learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.