IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:08.01.2026 Between:

Mangali Bhargav Kumar …Petitioner/Accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.470 of 2025 on the file of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and

66 D of the Information Technology Act (for short ‘IT Act’).

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a student and that allegation that he has created a video and circulated on YouTube is utterly false and that the pendency of this crime against the petitioner is spoiling his career. Even the ingredients of the complaint do not attract the offence under Section 66 D of the IT Act. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance with the work done by the de facto complainant, the petitioner has to settle the matter by getting work done through the de facto complainant but cannot post objectionable videos causing loss of reputation to the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out that the de facto complainant along with his family members migrated to Shadnagar for livelihood and LW.2, who is the husband of the LW.1-de facto complainant used to undertake construction work of the houses in the surrounding areas on contract. As a part of their construction work, they have undertaken the construction work to a house in the land which belongs to one Mangali Venkatesh, who is the father of the petitioner herein. While the construction was in progress, LW.2 expressed that the labour charges got hiked and therefore he requested to pay excess amount for which the parents of the petitioner agreed and paid Rs.2,60,000/- to LW.2. But, even after completion of one year, the de facto complainant failed to hand over the constructed house and the walls in the house developed cracks. By keeping all these in mind, the petitioner herein, in order to defame LW.2 and his family has taken the photographs of the LW.2 and his family members and other labourers from Instagram and further has captured live movements and further created fake videos, uploaded them in YouTube by giving his voice over with an intention that no others would give contract to LW.2 and his family. Thus, FIR is registered for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 66D of IT Act against the petitioner.

7. The said sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience:

Section 420 IPC:

“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 66D of IT Act:

“66D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.–

Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”

8. The ingredients of the complaint do not attract the offence under Section 420 IPC. There is no disho