Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN
Rekulapally Bhoopathi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
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 2nd 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 al
The court quashed criminal proceedings due to lack of necessary ingredients in the complaint and unexplained delay, constituting an abuse of legal process.
The absence of specific allegations in a defamation complaint and unexplained delays in filing can warrant quashing of proceedings as abuses of process of law.
The court emphasized the necessity for consistent evidence in summoning orders and declared the proceedings an abuse of process due to contradictions and retaliatory motives behind the complaint.
The court established that allegations in the FIR did not constitute extortion or criminal intimidation, emphasizing the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences.
The judgment establishes that mere abusive language does not suffice to constitute an intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, and that the essential elements of criminal intimidation must be clearl....
Vague allegations without specifics cannot constitute offenses under Sections 504 and 506 IPC; the continuation of such proceedings amounts to abuse of process.
Criminal proceedings can be quashed if the charge sheet fails to disclose essential elements of the alleged offenses, highlighting the need for substantial evidence to sustain charges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
