Telangana High Court
Sri.Vivek Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 9 March, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10018 of 2022
ORDER:
1.This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.2605 of 2022 on the file of XIII
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendernagar, which case is
filed for the offence under Section 354-D, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent wife lodged a complaint stating that
the petitioner herein was filing false cases against her alleging
prostitution and having multiple sex partners. 2nd Respondent
was showing sex videos to their child. It is further stated in the
complaint that the petitioner filed complaint in 1098 Child
Welfare Line Centre that the child was being abused and she
was into flesh trade. Against the petitioner, four criminal cases
were pending and he had caused bodily harm and also
torturing her calling her as prostitute. It is also alleged that he
was sharing her phone number to several others who are
making phone calls from unknown numbers. There are several
matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also
various Courts. However, without prosecuting the said cases,
he was harassing, stalking and torturing her.
3. The Police, Narsingi, having received the compliant
registered the same for the offence under Sections 354-D, 504
and 506 of IPC and having investigated the case, filed charge
sheet for the said offences.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner submits that the
petitioner/husband and the 2nd respondent/wife have been
fighting cases in Courts since 2017. They were married in the
year 2013 and a son was born on 18.10.2016 at New Delhi.
The petitioner was working in Netherlands and 2nd respondent
joined him at Netherlands. However, on 09.06.2017, the 2nd
respondent came back with her son informing the petitioner
that her mother was being treated in Hospital. However, the
petitioner found that the 2nd respondent is blocking the phone
of the petitioner and the reason of ailment was not correct.
Though the petitioner was making several attempts to meet 2nd
respondent and his son, she did not allow.
5. On 09.11.2017, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint in
the Woman Police, which was registered for the offences under
Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. The 2nd respondent also filed
petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and
also under DVC Act. While the issues were pending, the
petitioner filed GWOP No.47 of 2018 for custody of the minor
son and the Court allowed visitation rights. Though the Court
had directed the petitioner to visit his son, the 2nd respondent
was causing problems and did not adhere to the directions of
the Court granting visitation rights to the petitioner. Both the
petitioners have been going around the police station and the
Courts by filing petitions after petitions. Crime was registered
against both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and
complaints made against one another.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that none of the
provisions of Section 354-D of IPC are attracted. The 2nd
respondent is the wife and on account of disputes, several
complaints and counter complaints have been filed. Except
assuming that this petitioner was stalking her and harassing
her, there are no instances narrated. Such assumptions
cannot be made basis to continue criminal prosecution against
this petitioner. He relied on the judgment of this Court in
Criminal Petition No.1677 of 2021 dated 19.04.2021.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent would submit that the petitioner is indulging in
harassing the 2nd respondent over a period of time and there
are specific allegations in the complaint.
8. To attract an offence under Section 354-D of IPC, any
man who 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
would amount to stalking. "Any man" in Section 354-D
would include husband also. The word 'woman' used in
Section would include the wife.
9. In the present case, when the spouses are fighting with
each other in the courts, it cannot be said that false complaint
has been made. Even going by the complaint there are several
disputes before several Courts which are pending adjudication
and the 2nd respondent is specifically stating that the
petitioner and others have been following her making phone
calls. Further, it is also mentioned that the petitioner has been
threatening her continuously. Going by the complaint, prima
facie, ingredients of Section 354-D and 506 of IPC are made
out. For the said reasons, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, the trial Court shall draw its own conclusions on the
basis of evidence adduced during the course of trial.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 09.03.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10018 of 2022
Dated: 09.03.2023
kvs
