The court held that proceedings were quashed as the allegations did not establish a prima facie case for prosecution, emphasizing principles of abuse of process and judicial discretion in criminal cases.

ORDER :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Mr.T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.R.Giri Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.224 of 2020 on the file of Narsingi Police Station.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the said case. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 188 , 287, 109, 201 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 11(A) read with Section 5 of the AIRCRAFT ACT , 1934.

4. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Police, Narsingi Police Station, have registered the aforesaid crime for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. Thereafter, they have arrested the petitioner in the said crime on 05.03.2020. They have also added section of law from Section 188 of IPC to Sections 287 , 109, 115, 201 and 120B of IPC and Section 11(A) read with Section 5 of the AIRCRAFT ACT , 1934, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 336 of IPC.

5. In the complaint dated 02.03.2020, respondent No.2 stated that on 01.03.2020 at about 03.30 P.M., while he along with his colleague Mr.J.Kumar, ARPC-8088 while attending patrolling duty near Swaroop Cricket Stadium situated at Miyakhana Ghadda, Narsingi, they have observed coverage of surrounding places with the help of Drone Camera. Therefore, he requested the police to take action. On receipt of the said complaint, police have registered a case in Crime No.224 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW.1, the said Mr.J.Kumar as LW.2 (eye-witness), Mr.Vamshi Krishna, Software Engineer and Mr.Mahesh Yadav, Student as LWs.3 and 4 (eye-witnesses). LWs.5 and 6 are panch witnesses of the scene of offence, LWs.7 and 8 are panch witnesses for confession and seizure of material objects. LW.9 is Sub-Inspector of Police, who assisted the Investigating Officer. LW.10 is Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsingi Police Station, who issued FIR. LW.11 is Sub- Inspector of Police, who is the Investigating Officer and arrested the petitioner.

7. In the remand case diary, it is stated that the petitioner/accused No.1 is a Member of Parliament from Congress Party and accused No.2 is his brother. It is alleged that the petitioner and his brother instructed accused No.3 to bring car and another person to capture the video of surrounding places situated at Miyakhan Ghadda, which was surrounded by the properties belong to the private persons. Thus, accused No.3 along with accused No.8 met accused No.7 (Drone Operator) in the office of accused No.1, and accused No.2, explained him, bring him to Kokapet and met with accused No.6. Mr.Mungi Jaipal Reddy and accused No.6 shared the location with him. Later, accused Nos.3, 7, 8, 9 along with another person rushed to the Swaroop Cricket Stadium and fly the Drone Camera in air and started capturing video, accordingly, the petitioner and other accused moved the drone towards private properties.

8. It is further alleged that all the accused including the petitioner, hatched a plan to capture videos of farm house belongs to private persons to publish the videos in social media damaging their privacy. The petitioner and other accused have taken those images and displayed the same be