IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1349 OF 2024 DATED: 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026 Between K. Manmohan …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana represented by Public Prosecutor and one another ...Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1493 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offences under Sections 420, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri B. Balaji, learned counsel, representing Sri Banavath Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri S. Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.2021 at about 12:30 hours, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Police stating that the marriage of her daughter was fixed with the petitioner-accused No.2 and that on 07.03.2021 the petitioner-accused No.2 along with his family members came to the house of the respondent No.2 and agreed to perform marriage with her daughter but after eight days the petitioner-accused No.2’s family told to her that they had decided to cancel the marriage with her daughter because the petitioner-accused No.2 had received some wrong and dirty messages to his phone about the daughter of the respondent No.2 from unknown WhatsApp number and the same was forwarded to her. During the course of investigation, it is found that the accused No.1 had sent those messages to the phone of the petitioner-accused No.2 in view of the previous family disputes with the respondent No.2’s family. Hence, the accused persons have committed the alleged offences.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 submitted that he is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The marriage was fixed by the elders and due to misunderstandings the family members of the petitioner had decided to cancel the marriage and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner- accused No.2 to cheat the respondent No.2 or her daughter. There are no specific overtacts attributed to the petitioner- accused No.2 in the entire charge sheet. The Police without any proper investigation filed the charge sheet. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 420, 506 of IPC. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2.

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full- fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the marriage of the petitioner-accused No.2 was fixed with the daughter of the respondent No.2 on 07.03.2021. However, the said marriage was subsequently cancelled by the family members of the petitioner-accused No.2 on account of certain dirty messages allegedly received by the petitioner-accused No.2 through WhatsApp concerning the daughter of the respondent No.2.

07. In the above factual background, the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any specific allegations against the petitione