THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3776 of 2022

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.01 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhongir, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused, for the offences punishable under Section

506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09.08.2021, respondent No.2/ de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner, being a public representative, took some youngsters to his farmhouse and assaulted them along with his henchmen. The said incident was recorded and the video footage was got viral on social media. As a result, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Human Rights Commission (HRC), which inturn directed respondent No.2 to file a complaint before the concerned police authorities. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged before the concerned Superintendent of Police. While the matter stood thus, on 31.07.2021, the petitioner aggrieved by the complaint, telephoned the complainant’s brother and issued a warning, challenging his social status. Based on the above allegations, the Investigating Officer conducted an investigation and filed a final report before the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir. The said Court took cognizance of the matter and numbered the case as S.T.C.No.01 of 2022.

3. When this matter came up for consideration on 10.10.2025, there was no representation for respondent No.2 either in physical mode or virtual mode. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted to 15.10.2025. Today also, there is no representation for respondent No.2 either in physical mode or virtual mode. This Court is not having any option except to proceed with the matter on merits.

4. Heard Mr.Y.Sai Sankalp, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that there is no specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner attempted to cause injury or harm to respondent No.2/de-facto complainant at any point of time. Therefore, the offence under Section 509 of the IPC is also not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer, without properly conducting the investigation, filed final report, even without collecting telephonic evidence.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 7 SCC 423

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not has to be revealed after full fledged trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashment of proceedings in S.T.C.No.01 of 2022.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on

record, including the complaint and the charge sheet, it reveals that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner that he attempted to cause injury to respondent No.2/de-facto complainant. The record further discloses that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he made a telephone call to the brother of respondent No.2, namely Bojja Prem Kumar, and issued a warning. However, the Investigating Officer neither seized nor collected any telephonic conversation or call data records between the petitioner and the brother of respondent No. 2. In Column No.10 of the charge sheet, which pertains to the details of properties, articles, or documents seized o