Redapaka Raja Bhupal vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 199 Tel

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

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

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 constitute

1990 LawSuit(SC) 701

any 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) 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

(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

(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

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

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.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Dated: 02-JUL-2025 KHRM