The court upheld procedural integrity by refusing to quash the petition, ensuring due process in trial for allegations under IPC.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.8922 of 2023 on the file of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the alleged offences punishable under Section s 354-D , 420, 468, 471 and

506 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’).

2. Heard Sri Nabi Rasool Baladur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations and that the de-facto complainant and petitioner herein were the wife and husband and de-facto complainant has given Qula and after Qula, it is alleged that the petitioner herein is harassing her by stalking her and by sending vulgar and threatening messages to her mobile and also through social media like instragram and whatsapp by disturbing her personal and social life. He further submitted that there is no truth in the allegations and that after 5 months she went to his house, trespassed and abused him and therefore petitioner has also filed an F.I.R No. 145 of 2022 and that the said proceedings are pending at Nampally. He further submitted that while he was attending to cases at Nampally, the family of de-facto complainant manhandled him and the petitioner herein is the practising advocate and he lost his reputation due to the alleged acts of de-facto complainant. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that de-facto complainant has taken Qula from the petitioner herein and after that the petitioner has been sending vulgar and threatening messages to her and that the allegations do attract the ingredients of Section 354-D and hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. It reveals that the allegations point out the offence under 354-D, 420, 468, 471 and 506 of the IPC . The statements of the witnesses also point out the said allegations against the petitioner. The veracity of these statements and their evidentiary value are the matters to be tested during the course of trial by the trial Court. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere, as there are specific allegations made against the petitioner. Therefore, it is a subject matter of trial and requires proper adjudication.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the matter at the earliest. However, the attendance of the petitioner is dispensed with before the trial Court, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, provided that he shall be represented by his counsel on every date of hearing.