Telangana High Court
Redapaka Raja Bhupal vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
*****
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5540 of 2023
Between:
Redapaka Raja Bhupal ... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents
DATE OF ORDER: 02nd July, 2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgment?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether HER Lordship wish to see
the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
___________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
+ Criminal Petition No.5540 of 2023
% Date: 02nd July, 2025
Between:
Redapaka Raja Bhupal ... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High
Court, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Venumadhav
! Assistant Public Prosecutor for
the Respondent No.1-State: Smt.S.Madhavi
! Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Bala Murali.Y.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 1990 LawSuit(SC) 701
3
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5540 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-
accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in
C.C.No.1989 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile PCR) at
Karimnagar (for short ‘the learned trial Court’), registered
for the offences under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘).
02. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for
the petitioner-accused and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1
as well as Sri Bala Murali.Y, learned counsel for the
unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.
03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that
respondent No.2 is the victim and the complainant. The
petitioner-accused is stated to be a friend of LW2, who is
the maternal uncle of respondent No.2. It is alleged that the
petitioner-accused obtained the phone number of
respondent No.2 under the pretext of study purposes, and
4
thereafter borrowed a certain amount of money from her.
Subsequently, upon learning that the marriage of
respondent No.2 had been arranged with LW2, the
petitioner-accused allegedly began demanding further
money from her by threatening to disclose their prior
interactions to her family members. In response to the said
threats, respondent No.2 travelled to Hyderabad to meet
the petitioner-accused, during which he is alleged to have
misbehaved with her and reiterated his demand for money,
which she refused. It is further alleged that the petitioner-
accused subsequently instilled suspicion in the mind of
LW2 regarding respondent No.2. Thus, respondent No.2
lodged the present complaint seeking necessary action
against the petitioner-accused.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner-accused has no involvement whatsoever in
the alleged offences. The allegations levelled in the charge
sheet are false and baseless. The respondent No.2 has
been working as the Sub-Inspector of Police and with an
intention to harass the petitioner-accused, filed the present
case only with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
5
on the petitioner-accused on private and personal grudge.
The contents of the FIR or charge sheet do not disclose the
necessary and essential ingredients required to constitute
the offences under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 of the IPC.
With the above submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner-accused while praying for the quashment of
criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal 1 wherein it was held at Paragraph No.108 that:
“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-
ordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the following categories
of cases are given by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though
it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised:
(1) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and accepted
in their entirety do not prima facie constitute1
1990 LawSuit(SC) 701
6any offence or make out a case against the
accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First
Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or ‘complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation
is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
7
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
05. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well
as 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
trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this
Criminal Petition.
06. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is relevant to extract Sections 354-A, 354-D, 506 of
the IPC, which reads as under:
“354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for
sexual harassment.–
(1) A man committing any of the following
acts–
(i)physical contact and advances involving
unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii)a demand or request for sexual favours; or
8
(iii)showing pornography against the will of a
woman; or
(iv)making sexually coloured remarks,shall be
guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
(2)Any man who commits the offence specified
in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-
section (1) shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3)Any man who commits the offence specified
in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine, or with both.
354D. 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,
email 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
9
(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.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.–
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal
intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both; If threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, etc.– And if the threat be to
cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the
destruction of any property by fire, or to cause
an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to seven years, or to
impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
07. In order to attract the aforesaid penal
provisions, there must be specific and credible allegations
in the FIR or the charge sheet indicating that the petitioner-
accused engaged in acts constituting physical contact with
sexual intent, unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal
10
conduct of a sexual nature, demand for sexual favours, or
made sexually suggestive remarks; or that he followed the
complainant, attempted to establish repeated contact with
her against her will, or monitored her online activities; or
issued threats of injury with the intent to cause alarm or
fear. However, a perusal of the material on record reveals
that no such allegations have been made against the
petitioner-accused. The dispute, as projected, primarily
pertains to a monetary transaction between the petitioner-
accused and respondent No.2. There is, therefore, no
material on record to suggest the commission of any
incriminating act on the part of the petitioner-accused so as
to bring the case within the ambit of the alleged penal
provisions.
08. A plain reading of the FIR or charge sheet
remained silent regarding any specific role, overt act, or
involvement of the petitioner-accused in the alleged
offences. Even if the allegations in the charge sheet are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they
do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence
against the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the present
11
case falls within the parameters of point Nos.1, 3 and 7 of
Ch.Bhajan Lal‘s case cited supra.
09. In view of the aforementioned facts and
circumstances and having regard to the well-settled
principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the decision referred supra, this Court is of the
considered view that the essential ingredients necessary to
constitute the offences under Sections 354-A, 354-D and
506 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out against the
petitioner-accused. Hence, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner-accused amounts to
sheer abuse of process of law and the same are liable to
be quashed.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed
and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused
in C.C.No.1989 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile PCR) at
Karimnagar (for short ‘the learned trial Court’), are hereby
quashed.
12
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Dated: 02-JUL-2025
KHRM
[ad_1]
Source link