HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11079 of 2022

DATE: 28.11.2025

Between :

Shaik Faheemullah

....Petitioner/accused

AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Judicature of Telangana

At Hyderabad and another

....Respondents

: O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, for the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on 13.11.2019 stating that the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, circulated several defamatory statements against him on social media

platforms, such as, Facebook and WhatsApp, by stating “Mahek hotel, Nizamabad Ek chindi chor broker hai - 15 years pahele Ek Beggar Tha Wo Saala Nizamabad me. Gareeboko and Walkf Board lands fraud transaction se hotel open karke Aaj Hum Jaisa Nizamabad ke paash local peoples ko bolra ke Wo bada Hai Bolkar”. Further, the petitioner posted another message on Facebook on 12.09.2019, whereby the petitioner warned the youth to be aware of chindi chor brokers of hotel Mahek Nizambad, who are doing pairawi in police station, and he also made a Facebook post hinting that he was born to a prostitute and become a leader and that there is a drug mafia in Mahek Hotel, which belongs to his brother. The malicious posts made on Facebook and WhatsApp have caused immeasurable loss of reputation and defamed his mother as a prostitute. Hence, prayed to take necessary action.

2.2. Basing on the said private complaint, the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 500 oIPC and issued summons to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the said proceedings in C.C.No.420 of

2022.

3. Heard Mr. A.M. Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. N. Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State.

4. Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioner sent messages in WhatsApp group by using defamatory words. The learned Magistrate straight away took cognizance for the offence under Section 500 IPC, even without referring for investigation to the police, especially the offence under Section 500 IPC does not attract.

4.2. He further submitted that the petitioner is not an administrator of WhatsApp group. However, respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner as an accused. Even according to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint, the said allegations attract the offence under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’) only. However, respondent No.2 filed the complaint for the offence under Section 500 IPC and the same is not permitted under law.

4.3. He also submitted that with the very same allegations, respondent No.2 lodged police complaint on 01.06.2021. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.184 of 2021 was registered for the offences under Sections 505 and 507 IPC and Section 66-A of IT Act and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a final report for the offence under Sections 504 and 385 IPC and deleted the offence under Section 66-A IT Act. Hence, the present complaint proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2022 are not p