The court quashed criminal proceedings due to lack of necessary ingredients in the complaint and unexplained delay, constituting an abuse of legal process.

ORDER :

(K. LAKSHMAN, J.)

On 05.03.2025 this Court ordered notice to respondent No.2 and personal notice was also permitted. In compliance with the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo vide U.S.R.No.33815 of 2025 dated 25.03.2025 along with returned cover with an endorsement “No such person in this address”. Therefore, this Court directed the investigating officer in Crime No.280 of 2017 to serve notice on the 2^nd respondent and file proof of service. On 04.04.2025 learned Additional Public Prosecutor informed this Court that the investigating officer in the subject crime went to the residence of respondent No.2 to serve notice in compliance with the order of this Court dated 27.03.2025, but the door was locked. On enquiry, he came to know that respondent No.2 was in Pondicherry. He sought time to serve notice personally.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nizamabad Rural Police Station, has filed an affidavit stating that pursuant to the letter received from the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 27.03.2025, he made phone calls to respondent No.2 on 27.03.2025 and finally at 05:28 PM, respondent No.2 attended the phone call and informed him that he is out of state along with his family and he is at Puducherry on his personal work. The Sub-Inspector of Police informed about the pendency of the present criminal petition and posting of the case on 04.04.2025. The Sub-Inspector of Police has also enquired about the arrival of 2^nd respondent to Nizamabad. 2^nd respondent did not give proper answer. Therefore, the Sub-Inspector of Police has deputed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and P.C.No.1720 to the house of 2^nd respondent situated at Mubarak Nagar, Nizamabad, but the door was locked. He has also filed screenshot of whatsapp extract sent to 2^nd respondent. Thus despite knowledge, 2^nd respondent did not enter appearance.

3. Heard Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

4. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for Short “BNSS”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Manoranjan Court Complex, at Nampally, Hyderabad. Petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

5. On the complaint lodged by 2^nd respondent dated 09.10.2017 police Nizamabad Rural have registered a case in Crime No.280 of 2017 on 17.10.2017 against the petitioner herein. As per the said complaint, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are as follows:

(i) He was working as Telangana Region DGM in Venkatasai Entertainment Private Limited. Media Vision, Kesix, Roshan News Channels of the said organization are running under his supervision. The said Channels are most popular local channels in Nizamabad District.

(ii) Unable to digest their organization development day by day, the petitioner herein along with Kanchetty Gangadhar of Mittapalli, Darpalli Sarpanch Gangadhar and others prepared a wrong message to be sent on Whatsapp to give a wrong signal to the public to cause harm to their organization, personally the complainant and his uncle who is Sri Bajireddy Govardhan, MLA, Nizamabad Rural.

(iii) On 07.10.2017 (Saturday), in Whatsapp Groups, especially TRS MP Group, TRS Party Nizamabad Group and also various Reddy Groups under the caption “Nizamabad Rural Bajireddy Govardhan & Vaari Alludu Pintu Intinti Vasool Rajakeeyam” publicizing Rural MLA Bajireddy Govardhan and respondent No.2 herein threatened the Electronic Media Owners (MSOs) of the rural constituency by making false postings and threatening the Media Managements (MSO) to pay Rs.30, Rs.20 per month towards rowdy Mamool from each house in the constituency to the Rural MLA Bajireddy and respondent No.2 herein.

(iv) They are harassing him mentally by taking their