IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7290 OF 2023 DATE: 08-04-2026 Between:

Mr. Harish Trivedi … Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, and another ... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.20492 of 2019 on the file of learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, registered for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Kaushik Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri V. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that matrimonial disputes are pending between the de facto complainant and his wife and that his wife and children are living separately from him. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the sister and brother of the wife of the de facto complainant. While so, on an application filed by the de facto complainant, visitation rights were granted to him and he was allowed to celebrate Father’s Day with his children on 16.06.2019 at any temple premises in Hyderabad between 11:00 and 13:00 hours. The de facto complainant informed the same to his wife through Whatsapp chat and she has accepted to obey the orders of the Court and the venue was decided to be Shyam Baba Temple, Kachiguda. On the eve of Father’s day, at around 10:40 hours, the de facto complainant went to Shyam Baba Temple along with toys and gifts purchased for his children and informed about his arrival to his wife. Later, at 11:15 hours, his wife and accused No.1 along with the children arrived at the temple and he spent some time with the children. It is alleged that, at about 11:40 hours, accused No.1 has taken away his daughter and also asked his wife to follow her along with his son. In spite of his repeated requests, they left the place and got into an auto-rickshaw. In the meantime, the petitioner-accused No.2 reached the spot on his bike and accused Nos.1 and 2 threatened him with dire consequences that they would see his end. Thus, the present complaint is filed and on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s sister, who is the wife of the de facto complainant, has lodged a complaint at Kachiguda Police Station against the de facto complainant vide Crime No.148 of 2019 under Section 509 I.P.C., alleging that he abused her in filthy and unparliamentary language and insulted her modesty. The present complaint has been lodged by the de facto complainant as a counter blast to the said case; that no such alleged incident has occurred and that the petitioner never posed any threat to the de facto complainant herein. He further submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. do not get attracted even as per the allegations levelled in the complaint. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the present C.C. He relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that accused No.1, who has come along with the wife of the de facto complainant to the temple, has not allowed the celebration to go on and that just because of her attitude, commotion has taken place in the temple premises and that all the efforts taken by the de facto complainant to spend some more time with his children went in vain. He further submitted that the accused posed threat to the life of the de facto complainant and that there are no grounds to entertain the present Criminal Petition. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioner-accused No.2 herein is the brother-in-law of the de facto com