Continuation of proceedings is not justified where allegations do not substantiate the charges, indicating potential abuse of process.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1786 of 2019 on the file of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Medchal, for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 28.10.2025. On 28.10.2025 also, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. To give one more final opportunity to respondent No.2, the matter was posted to 04.11.2025 under the caption ‘for orders’. In spite of the matter being listed under the caption ‘for orders’, today also there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

3. Heard Mr. P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 State.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.12.2018, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her ex-husband i.e., the petitioner has been harassing her and her daughter, and her parents following their divorce on 03.09.2017, which took place in Australia. After the divorce, the petitioner continuously issued life threats to the complainant and her family, causing them severe distress. She further stated that she and her daughter came to India on 11.12.2018, but the petitioner continued to threaten them. On 13.12.2018, he allegedly warned that he would file a criminal complaint against them and threatened her family with dire consequences. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner neither harassed nor threatened respondent No.2, and the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC are not attracted. He further submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 obtained a decree of divorce on 03.09.2017 from the Australian Family Court (Parramatta Family Court), Sydney, Australia, vide Case No. PAC 2180 of 2018. In the application filed before the Australian Court, respondent No.2 herself specifically mentioned that the child lives alternately between the petitioner and respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions of the decree of divorce and did not permit the petitioner to have custody of the child, the petitioner filed G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019 under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No.634 of 2019 in G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019, the petitioner approached this Court by filing F.C.A. No.225 of 2019, wherein this Court granted interim stay and directed respondent No.2 not to remove the child from Hyderabad during the pendency of the said case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has also approached this Court by filing W.P. No.26266 of 2019, seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein to produce the minor child. While the above disputes were pending betw