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

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2546 of 2023 Between:

Kolapuri Komuramma ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents DATE OF ORDER: 18^th July, 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.2546 of 2023 % Date: 18^th July, 2025 Between:

Kolapuri Komuramma ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar ! Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1-State: Smt.S.Madhavi >HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 1001 : (2016) 1 ALT (Cri) 172 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2546 OF 2023

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.593 of 2022 including impugned order dated 20.04.2022 passed in CRL.M.P.No.134 of 2022 in Crime No.107 of 2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, registered for the offences under Sections 290, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. None appeared for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the complainant–respondent No.2 is that she is a resident of Gumlapur Village of Choppadandi Mandal and that accused No.1, who is also a resident of the same village, came to Choppadandi to attend a Jai Bheem meeting, during which he obtained her phone numbers and spoke to her in a rude manner. It is alleged that thereafter, the accused No.1 harassed her with an intention to satisfy his sexual desires by repeatedly making phone calls to her. On 01.06.2021, at about 19:00 hours, when she went to the house of accused No.1 and questioned him about such harassment, the petitioner–accused No.2 allegedly abused her in filthy language and assaulted her with hands. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary action. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against accused No.1, deleting the name of the petitioner–accused No.2 for lack of evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant–respondent No.2 filed a protest petition before the learned trial Court, which was allowed, and cognizance was taken against the petitioner–accused No.2 by way of the impugned order. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner–accused has no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences. It is contended that the police have not filed any charge sheet against the petitioner and that there is no incriminating material on record against her. It is further submitted that the concept of taking cognizance on the basis of a protest petition is not specifically contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate has also not issued any notice to the petitioner–accused prior to taking cognizance against her on the protest petition. It is further alleged that the complainant has a habit of obtaining phone numbers of men, calling them, and threatening them. There is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the complaint, which has not been satisfactorily explained. With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner-accused he relied upon a decision of this Court in Arshanapalli Rambai v. State of Telangana¹ wherein at Paragraph No.7 it was