HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2975 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.2008 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, for the offences under Sections 504 and 385 of the Indian

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

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint stating that the petitioner identified himself as Dr. Faheem, has been posting highly offensive, insulting, derogatory, provocative, false, baseless, highly objectionable, unfounded, abusive,

outrageous and defamatory comments against him, his old age mother and father over the social media i.e, WhatsApp group of Nizamabad Icon of RS & Awazkhan Momin times Group on 07.05.2021, 09.05.2021, 27.05.2021 and 29.05.2021 with an ill intention to damage his reputation and assassinate his and his parents character among the general public with an intension to collect huge money from him. Previously, the petitioner has posted these types of comments against some of the people in the Facebook and compromised by taking huge amount from them. Hence, prayed to take necessary action.

2.2. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.184 of 2021 of Nizamabad Town-I Police Sstation for the offences under Sections 505 and 507 IPC. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 504 and 385 IPC and numbered it as C.C.No.2008 of 2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the said proceedings.

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. Initially the crime was registered for the offences under Sections 505 and 507 IPC and Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the IT Act). However, the Investigating Officer deleted the offence under Section 66-A of IT Act and filed a final report for the offences under Sections 504 and 385 IPC without conducting any investigation under the provisions of IT Act.

4.2. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint would attract the offence under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’) only, but not penal offences. In spite of the same, the petitioner was implicated for the penal provisions under Sections 504 and 385 IPC and the ingredients for the said offences are not attracted. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Governmetn of NCT of Delhi1

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has posted derogatory messages against respondent No.2 and his parents in WhatsApp groups on 07.05.2021, 09.05.2021, 25.07.2021 and 29.05.2021 and defamed them. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients for the offences under