THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6283 OF 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.351 of 2024 on the file of the Station House Officer, Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 353, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

03. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the respondent No.2 is working as Manager (Engg), Moosapet Section, Sub-Division II, O & M Division IX of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, and is responsible for attending to the complaints pertaining to Wards No.115 (Balajinagar) and 117 (Moosapet). It is alleged that the petitioner-accused, claiming to be a lawyer, visited the office of the respondent No.2 on 02.04.2024 and contacted her over the phone while she was engaged in site work, during which she answered his call and attended to his issue. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused allegedly continued to call her repeatedly until 07:09 PM and sent text messages containing warnings. It is further alleged that, despite being aware that the respondent No.2 is a woman public servant discharging her official duties diligently and addressing various public grievances, the petitioner-accused frequently visited her office, used abusive language, and threatened her over phone calls and text messages during odd hours. On 03.04.2024, the petitioner-accused along with his followers, again visited her office and intentionally picked up an argument with her. It is alleged that such incidents had occurred on three earlier occasions, during which the respondent No.2 refrained from reacting. However, the petitioner-accused conduct allegedly became more aggressive and intimidating over time. Due to the continuous acts of the petitioner-accused, the respondent No.2 was emotionally disturbed and unable to discharge her regular official duties. Hence the complainant requested to take necessary legal action against the petitioner-accused.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused has nothing to do with the alleged offences. The petitioner-accused never used any criminal force towards the respondent No.2 and he never insulted her modesty and never threatened her. There are no specific allegations leveled against the petitioner-accused. All the allegations are vague. It is further contended that there is no incriminating material to substantiate the said allegations. The contents of the complaint or FIR do not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506, 509 of IPC.

05. With the above submissions, while praying to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in P.V. Mathai v. The State of Kerala and others, MANU/KE/3170/2022 wherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 that:

“13. In the case on hand, the prosecution has no case that the petitioner has used any force on the 2^nd respondent. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution in short is that, after entering into the office room of the petitioner, the accused asked as follows:- “Who asked you to enter into my property, who is your authorized officer, who gave you the authority to enter into my land.” Apart from uttering these words, there was absolutely no use of force or even an attempt to use force. Apart from the vague allegation that the official time of the 2^nd respondent was lost on account of the alleged acts of the petitioner, there is no specific allegation that the above mentioned words were utt