THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4593 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.613 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short, ‘IT Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.07.2023, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Police against the petitioner stating that she was married to Mr. Mohammed Iftekar Ahmed in October 2021, and they had a daughter. Due to family disputes, they divorced on 13.03.2023 before their family members and community elders, as per customary practices and since then they have been living separately. Subsequently, the petitioner allegedly extracted voice recordings of her private conversations with friends from her mobile phone and shared them with her relatives and acquaintances, spreading false publicity against her and also reported that the petitioner threatened her to live with him or he would circulate her private photos and videos on social media to ruin her reputation and damage her prestige in the society.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 354D and 509 of IPC and Section 66(A) of IT Act and they filed the charge sheet, vide C.C.No.613 of 2023 before the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubnagar. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceeding against him.

4. Heard Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri Mohd.

Valiur Rahman, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and none of the alleged offences are applicable to him and that the contents of the complaint and those in the charge sheet are entirely inconsistent and contradictory, and that there is no evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offences. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer, without any documentary proof, filed the charge sheet solely based on the material provided by respondent No. 2 and that continuation of proceedings under Section 66A of the IT Act is an abuse of process, as the said provision was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal Vs.

Union of India1

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are no specific allegations to attract the offence under Section 354D of IPC, which criminalizes the act of stalking, which involves following, contacting or attempting to contact a person repeatedly despite their clear indication of disinterest. In support of this, the prosecution relied on the statement of LW.4, who admitted that he had no knowledge of being listed as an eyewitness in the case. LW.4 also submitted an affidavit stating that he had no knowledge about what is alleged in the complaint and is also ready and willing to come before the Court and depose of the same to that effect and further contended that the elements required to establish offence under Section 506 of IPC, such as

1 AIR 2015 SC 1523

intent to insult the modesty of a woman and repeated unwelcome contact are not there in the present case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. Despite the divorce, the petitioner allegedly continued to contact the complainant, pressuring her to cohab