IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to carefully evaluate the nature of offenses and the possibility of quashing proceedings under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., particularly in cases where the dispute may be primarily civil in nature.

Headnote:
Sec. 482 - Criminal Petition - Ss. 354(D), 506 and 509 read with Sec. 34 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the offenses under Ss. 354(D), 506 and 509 of IPC and their applicability to the case. It highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, ultimately leading to the decision to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of harassment, abuse, and threats made by the petitioners against the respondent, including disconnecting water supply and capturing photos and videos to upload on social media. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not prima facie constitute the offenses under Ss. 354(D), 506, and 509 of IPC. It also noted that the dispute appeared to be primarily civil in nature and deemed it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the alleged offenses under Ss. 354(D), 506, and 509 of IPC to the actions of the petitioners and whether the dispute was primarily civil in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in various judgments to evaluate the nature of the offenses and the possibility of quashing the proceedings. It emphasized the need to prevent abuse of the process of law and to consider the nature and gravity of the offenses.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No.9195 of 2021 were quashed.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.9195 of 2021 on the file of Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Ss. 354(D), 506 and 509 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner/accused No.1 was harassing the other Flat owners of the building, including LW5, who is the tenant of respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. Further, he has also disconnected the water connection to their flats and insulted LW4/tenant, when she was watering the plants. Further, petitioner/accused No.1 used to abuse the driver of another flat owner, when he comes to the building by wearing slippers. Further, when the tenant of respondent No.2 went to the terrace of the building, petitioner/accused No.1 warned her not to come again and locked the terrace gate. It is alleged that petitioner/accused No.1 disconnected water connection to all the flats and when LW5/tenant informed the same to the respondent No.2, flat owner along with respondent No.2 came to the flat of petitioner/accused No.1 and questioned him as to why he has disconnected the water connection and locked the terrace gate. It is further alleged that when respondent No.2 was talking to the petitioner/accused No.1, the petitioner/accused No.2 abused respondent No.2/de-facto complainant for coming to their building and further accused No.3, who is the daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2, captured the photos and videos of respondent No.2 and threatened her that she would upload those photos in social media platforms. Petitioner/accused No.1 threatened respondent No.2 stating that no one can come and do anything and that she can express her grievance to anyone and insulted the modesty of respondent No.2 by abusing her in a filthy language, for which, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 supported him. Basing on the complaint given by respondent No.2, a case was registered against the petitioners herein vide FIR No.291 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the statement made by respondent No.2 that she is residing at Flat No.5, Sri Krupa Apartments, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, is a blatant lie and as per her statement under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., she is residing at Plot No.54/A, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, which is a different premises. Further, in the complaint, respondent No.2 stated that petitioner No.1 is harassing and abusing her in foul language and when she sought access to the terrace, which is a common property to all the flat owners, petitioner/accused No.1 warned her and troubled the tenants by disconnecting the water supply to them and in fact, C.C. cameras were fixed at convenient places for watching the movements of persons coming into the building. It is contended that the entire allegations made in the charge sheet do not attract any offence against the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 354(D), 506 and 509 of IPC. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the police after due investigation filed charge sheet and therefore, it is not a fit case to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that respondent No.2 and her brother are the joint owners of Flat No.5, 2nd floor, Saikrupa Nilayam, House No.8/2/293/82/J/A/55/A, Journalist Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and she is a single mother having two minor children. Her brother is residing in USA. Subsequent to the death of father of respondent No.2, petitioners herein started harassing her mentally