THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2482 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.871 of 2023 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against

the petitioners are under sections 509, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused Nos.1 and 2 Sri K.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A.Y.Vishesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record.

3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the de facto complainant was solemnized with the son of the petitioners. After marriage, due to the harassment of her in laws for additional dowry she lodged a complaint in Cr.No.204 of 2021 on the file of Saroornagar woman police station. After that her husband went to USA, since then, her in laws were only attending the court. Her in laws spread rumors about her and uploaded

photos and videos on social media and harassed her and her family members. While she was attending the Court at Ranga Reddy District her in laws abused her in vulgar language by showing videos to her husband and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the offences under Sections 509, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is no material placed by the prosecution and police without investigating the matter have simply filed the charge sheet and reproduced the allegations of the complaint in the charge sheet. The police neither took the CC footage of the Court premises nor seized the camera or cell phones from which the petitioners alleged to have recorded the movements of the 2^nd respondent and sent to their son. Further, they did not file the video clips in the Court to prove the recording of the movements of the petitioners. The petitioners are the father in law and mother in law of de facto complainant and a false case has been registered against the parents of the husband of the de facto complainant. Further, the husband of de facto complainant is residing in USA and she is residing separately. Without any basis and with all false allegations she lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Further the de facto complainant has filed number of cases with all false allegations against the petitioners and husband which are pending in various courts. He submits that in the cited list of witnesses no independent witnesses are cited in the charge sheet and all are relatives of the de facto complainant. Further as per the statements of the alleged witnesses no charge is made out against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. He relied upon a decision held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tomaso Bruno and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178, wherein it was held as under-

24. With the advancement of information technology, scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is to pervade the methods of investigation. With the increasing impact of technology in everyday life and as a result, the production of electronic evidence in cases has become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or the liability of the defendant. Electronic documents stricto sensu are admitted as material evidence. With the amendment to the Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65-A and 65-B were introduced into Chapter V relating to documentary evidence. Section 65-A provides that contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65-B is complied with. The computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Sub- section (1) of Section 65-B