Vague allegations without specifics cannot constitute offenses under Sections 504 and 506 IPC; the continuation of such proceedings amounts to abuse of process.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.1567 of 2018 on the file of learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.06.2018, the de facto complainant filed complaint stating that on 14.04.2018, between 7:00 PM and 7:30 PM, the petitioner came to his apartment and asked to meet him to discuss some apartment-related issues, as he is the secretary of the apartment and the watchman informed her that the he was not available at that time and that he would be available only in the morning. On the next day on 15.04.2018, at about 12:00 noon, she again came to the apartment and met him. When the he asked her about the issue and why she wanted to discuss it with him, she started using abusive language and threatened that she would send one Rajkumar and his family to jail. She further stated that she would do anything to achieve this. When the Secretary questioned her behaviour, she replied that since he was the Secretary of the apartment where Rajkumar and his family were residing, she was informing him. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.171 of 2018 was registered by the Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad District, against the petitioner. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet before the IV Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences and numbered the case as C.C.No.1567 of 2018.

3. Heard Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ratnesh Raju Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 -State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and she has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident has occurred on 15.04.2018, whereas, respondent No.2 filed complaint on 27.06.2018 with a lapse of more than 2 months without assigning any reasons.

4.1 He further submitted that the petitioner only said that one Rajkumar is a fake doctor and requested respondent no.1 to remove him from the apartment. He further submitted that the said Rajkumar was already in judicial custody on the date of alleged incident. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC do not attract. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.2 In support his contention he has relied upon the following judgments:

i) B.V.Ram Kumar v State of Telangana and Ors. , 2025 (1) ALD (Crl.) 536 (SC)

ii) Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka , 2015 (1) ACR 659 (SC)

iii) A.M.Mohan V. The State represented by SHO and Ors. , 2024 (263) AIC 115

iv) Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The state of Uttarpradesh and Anr. , 2025 LiveLaw(SC) 880

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently contended that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. He further submitted that the petitioner appea