Lack of specific allegations or direct involvement in stalking or insulting modesty leads to quashing of criminal proceedings under IPC.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.3603 of 2021 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Chekuri Yadagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Yogitha Prakash, learned counsel, representing Mr. Sunil B Ganu, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 22.06.2021 at 17-45 hours before the Station House Officer, Karkhana Station, stating that she has been continuously stalked by three phone numbers on WhatsApp and received messages since March, 2019 and that recently also she received similar kind of messages from the above mentioned numbers and the pattern of the messages is the same and therefore, it is very clear that someone is stalking her for a long period and there is a likelihood that in the near future an incident may happen with the complainant, which may cost her life and dignity. Based on the above said complaint, the present crime was registered for the above mentioned offences.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 has not made any allegation against the petitioner and the name of the petitioner was also not mentioned in the complaint and the entire allegations are levelled against one Abhishek Dhaka. In the charge sheet also, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. In her statement also, she suspects that Abhishek Dhaka was sending the messages in the name of Sourav Jain @ Saurav Raidhani. The petitioner has never sent any messages through his phone nor stalking respondent No.2 in any manner. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of LW.1 only. The allegations made in the complaint and the statement recorded before the Investigating Officer, are one and the same. The Investigating Officer has not recovered any material while conducting investigation. Thus, the ingredients for the offence under Sections 354(D) and 509 of IPC do not attract against the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon Redapaka Raja Bhupal v. The State of Telangana , 2025 Supreme (Online) (Tel) 11364.

5. Submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

5.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be revealed after full-fledged trial only. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 received WhatsApp messages through three different mobile numbers. The said messages were already handed over to the Investigating Officer. At the time of trial, the prosecution will submit electronic records and other relevant documents and that stage has not been reached. He further submitted that the role of the petitioner was specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. Hence, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 354(D) and 509 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for quashing the proceedings at this stage.

Analysis:

6. Havin