IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.297 of 2026 Date: 09.01.2026 Between:

Chandrashekar Raoji ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Representing Police Station, Keshampet, Ranga Reddy District and another ...Respondents

ORDER

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1487 of 2021, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Shadnagar, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 354-D of IPC.

2. Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing false allegations and has not committed the offence of stalking the de facto complainant. He further submitted that a case already stands registered against the petitioner herein in Crime No.16 of 2021, which is still under investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 493, 376(2)(n), 420, 109 r/w 34 of IPC. During the pendency of the said case, the de facto complainant has once again lodged the present complaint by reiterating false allegations, with the sole intention of harassing the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the contents of the compliant do point out the allegations under Section 354-D of IPC. He further submitted that, since the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is still pending against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot, at this stage, be presumed to be innocent. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be dismissed.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint do point out the allegations that the petitioner has stalked the de facto complainant. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner used to abuse the de facto complainant in filthy language and also used to call the mother of the de facto complainant, abused her and her daughter (the de facto complainant) suspecting their chastity. The de facto complainant has further alleged that her mobile phone was snatched away by the mother of the petitioner herein and that the entire family of the petitioner has been harassing the family of the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that even at the police station, when the de facto complainant went to lodge the complaint, the petitioner abused her and snatched away her mobile phone.

7. Thus, the contents of the complaint do point out the offences under Sections 354D, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ingredients of Section 354-D of IPC are not attracted as per the contents of the complaint. C.C. No.1487 of 2021 is pending before the Trial Court and it is for the Trial Court to frame appropriate charges depending on the ingredients made out from the complaint. Since a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner herein, it is not just and proper to quash the proceedings at this stage. Hence it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the Criminal Petition by dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court.

8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the presence of the petitioner/accused before the Trial Court provided that the petitioner is represented through an Advocate on every date of hearing and that he shall be present before the Trial Court whenever his presence is specifically required during the course of trial.

9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE