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.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1567 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad, (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offences under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Pulimamdmi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1 as well as Sri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.3.

Perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.01.2023, the respondent No.2-complainant noticed the circulation of a video on social and electronic media relating to an incident that allegedly occurred in the hostel of Mahindra University, depicting the involvement of certain students of the said University. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 came to know that the respondent No.3-victim is a B.Tech first-year student of Mahindra University and is residing in the University campus hostel. It is further alleged that, in the month of November, the petitioner-accused No.1 made a phone call to the respondent No.3 and threatened him on the allegation that the respondent No.3 had scolded a friend of the petitioner-accused No.1 by name Nanda. On the same day, after completion of dinner, while the respondent No.3 was alone in his Room No.9-12A, at about 22:00 hours, the petitioner-accused No.1, along with the accused No.2 and other associates, allegedly went to the said room. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 and the accused No.2 assaulted the respondent No.3 without any valid reason, while the other accused persons were roaming in the room.

04(a). Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused No.1 has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is contended that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in November, 2022, whereas the complaint came to be lodged by the University only on 19.01.2023, after an unexplained delay of nearly two months. It is further submitted that the present complaint was not initiated by the respondent No.3, who is projected as the victim. The petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.3 are students of the same University, and the charge sheet does not disclose the exact date or time of the alleged video clip. It is also submitted that there is no medical or other corroborative evidence on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against the accused persons. Even if the allegations contained in the charge sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute any offence. The contents of the charge sheet, read as a whole, do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to attract the alleged offences.

04(b). With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused No.1, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and another , 2025 INSC 194 wherein it was held at Paragraph No.21 and 22 that:

“21. Further, this Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., while discussing Section 504, IPC, propounded the test for considering the circumstances wherein, an abusive language takes the form and shape of an intentional insult and held thus:

“28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to b