Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Kanchetty Gangadhar S/o Bhumaiah – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition to quash proceedings. (Para 1) |
| 2. background complaint details. (Para 3 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments on lack of substantial allegations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments about delay in complaint. (Para 6 , 16) |
| 5. court’s observations on complaint validity. (Para 8 , 14 , 19) |
| 6. extraction of relevant ipc sections. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 7. conclusion to quash proceedings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed with the following prayer:
“Pleased to quash the proceedings culminated by the cognizance order dated 21.12.2021 in C.C.No.2426 of 2021 on the file of Hon’ble II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Nizamabad now C.C.No.5 of 2025 on the file of Hon’ble Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, at Manoranjan Court Complex, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the interest of the Justice.”
2. Heard Mr. T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents.
3. A Telugu written complaint dated 09.10.2017 (at Page No.31) came to be lodged in the rural police
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 ruled that allegations under Section 500 IPC are not maintainable without a private complaint, and no wrongful restraint or criminal intimidation was established against the petitioner.
The court quashed criminal proceedings for trespass and intimidation, highlighting that allegations lacked required intent and could be deemed malicious, thereby abusing the legal 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.
The court held that allegations of defamation and criminal intimidation lacked substance and failed to meet the necessary legal criteria under IPC Sections 500 and 506.
Individuals with influence on social media have a higher responsibility for their messages and cannot escape consequences by issuing apologies.
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
