HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA *****

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4687 of 2024 Between:

Anchanoori Rajesh ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents DATE OF ORDER: 31^st October, 2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No see the Judgment?

2 Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Yes/No Reporters/Journals

3 Whether HER Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No Judgment?

___________________

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J * THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI + Criminal Petition No.4687 of 2024 % Date: 31^st October, 2025 Between:

Anchanoori Rajesh ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Gundaram Manoj Goud ! Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1-State: Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy ! Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri K. Laxmi Manohar >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4687 OF 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.222 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offences under Sections 507, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri Gundaram Manoj Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1 as well as Sri K. Laxmi Manohar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has been working as the Mandal Parishad President (MPP), Narsingi, while the petitioner-accused has been serving as the Mandal Secretary. Both of them belong to the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) political party. It is alleged that on 20.01.2023, when the Member of Parliament was scheduled to visit Kudavelli Village, the respondent No.2, along with others, went to meet the Member of Parliament in the morning to submit a requisition seeking sanction of an intermediate examination centre at Narsingi Village. It is further alleged that, on the said occasion, the petitioner–accused made a phone call to one Sri K. Raghavender and, referring to LW1 (respondent No.2), stated, “adhi naaku cheppakunda mimmulanu theesukuni etla pothadi”. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint seeking necessary action against the petitioner–accused and the Police filed charge sheet for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 507 of the IPC.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner–accused submitted that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is contended that all the allegations levelled in the charge sheet are false, frivolous and baseless. It is further submitted that the police, without conducting any proper or fair investigation, have mechanically filed the charge sheet. There is an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The words allegedly used by the petitioner-accused, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence. The contents of the charge sheet, on their entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to attract the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 507 of IPC. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused.

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided