IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:06.01.2026 Between:

T.S. Bhargava Sai Kiran and another …Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 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 petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in FIR No.569 of 2025 on the file of Sangareddy Rural Police Station, Sanga Reddy District, registered for the offences under Sections 78 of BNS and 66D of the Information Technology Act (for short ‘IT Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations under Section 78 of BNS does not attract against the petitioners herein and that they never indulged in the offence of stalking nor they have tried to outrage the modesty of any woman. Without there being any preliminary enquiry, the police have foisted a false case against the petitioners herein without any basis. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the name of the complainant a fake Instagram account was created by some unknown persons with an objectionable message by posting her photos by using an User ID-

Im_Ur_grl_25619(url:https://www.instagram.com/in_ur_grl_25619 ?igsh=ODBueW1xdFhN29v) and a caption was placed underneath it as follows:

“Call me tonight… I am free Today”.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that on enquiry, the police could trace out the mail ID to be pertaining to accused No.2 herein and the involvement of accused Nos.1 and 2 is prima facie made out, hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The allegations against the petitioners are under Sections 78 of BNS and 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The said Sections are extracted hereunder:

Section 78 of BNS reads as:

“Section 78 – Stalking.

(1) Any man who, (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, e-mail or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking;

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that, (i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or (ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or (iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 reads as under:

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

Whoever, by means for any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating, 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. A bare perusal of Section 78 of BNS and the allegations in the complaint would point out that Section 78 of BNS does not get attracted against accused No.2 herein as she is a lady. However, the allegations made in the complaint point out