THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.9527 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashment of C.C.No.329 of 2025 on the file of the XIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rangareddy District at Rajendranagar.

2. I have heard Sri Achyuth Bharthwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.329 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 74, 115(2), 352 r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’).

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that, a police report was lodged on 13.12.2024, alleging that on 11.12.2024, in the elevator of Tower-2, Lanco Hills, petitioner No. 1 allegedly used abusive language, whereupon respondent No. 2 slapped him twice. It is further alleged that during a compromise meeting held on 13.12.2024, the petitioners assaulted the respondent No. 2/de facto complainant and outraged the modesty of his wife. Based on this report, the police at Raidurgam registered Crime No. 1230 of 2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complaint by respondent No. 2 is a retaliatory ‘counter-blast’ to the earlier police report dated 11.12.2024. He argues that the complaint contains no specific allegations or prima facie material connecting the petitioners to the offences alleged. Even a bare reading of the police report and statements, it is submitted, reveals the absence of any specific overt act or intention to commit the alleged offence of outraging a woman’s modesty. The allegation of voluntarily causing hurt is also challenged as baseless, being unsupported by medical evidence. As for the accusation of provoking a breach of peace, counsel argues that there is no evidence of such provocation or of any disturbance to public order. The averments, according to him, are fabricated and without foundation. Even taken at face value, the alleged occurrence does not disclose the essential ingredients of common intention or abetment. Thus, he submits, the continuation of the proceedings amounts to a misuse of criminal law. During the hearing, counsel clarified that the petitioners are restricting their challenge to the invocation of the offence of outraging modesty under Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), asserting that the prosecution’s materials, at their highest, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of that offence. He therefore prays for quashment of the cognizance taken under Section

74 of BNS.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the petition, contending that the alleged incident and the overt acts have been corroborated by witness statements. He submits that the applicability of the charged offence is a matter for the trial court to determine at the appropriate stage. At present, charges have not yet been framed, and the petitioners may raise their objections before the trial court. Intervention at this preliminary stage, he argues, would be premature. Given the existence of prima facie material warranting a trial, the quashing of proceedings at this juncture is unwarranted. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials on record.

8. The petitioners are contesting the allegation of outraging modesty within the scope of Section 74 of the BNS. Upon a query from the Court, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court may consider the material on record and partially quash the offence mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and the charge sheet. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the legal position laid down in Ishwar Pratap Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 13 SCC 612.

9. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Hitesh Ve