Telangana High Court
Aitagani Janardhan vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7030 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused,
seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1213 of 2021, on the
file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam,
Khammam District.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for the respondent - State. Perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint with the Police
alleging that the petitioner had taken her phone number and
since then he has been calling her on her phone and
unnecessarily stalking her. While speaking, the petitioner used
to use double-meaning words and tried to control her. When
she refused, he bore a grudge against her. Thereafter, he had
published a photo, which was cropped, i.e., the photo was
edited in such a manner that the 2nd respondent and another
person belonging to a local party were only shown. According
to her, the said edited photo amounts to insulting her.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
two complaints were lodged. In the initial complaint, there was
no allegation about any kind of contact that was made by the
2nd respondent, as such, the question of stalking does not arise.
Even admitting the fact that the photo was cropped, it was still
captioned with 'Good occasion, God bless you', which is not
offensive. Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana
and Others 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
"In 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 guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised:
(a) 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
1992 Supp (1) SC 335
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused;
(b) 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;
(c) 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;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) 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."
5. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner,
having the taken phone number of 2nd respondent, used to
contact her on her phone and used to talk to her with double-
meaning words. Thereafter, a photograph that was deliberately
edited was published, and only two persons were shown in the
photograph. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner
had deliberately edited the photograph to show her in bad light.
In the charge sheet filed and also in the complaint, the phone
numbers of petitioner, 2nd respondent, and other details of calls
are given.
6. Whether there was communication in between the 2nd
respondent and the petitioner and whether editing a
photograph amounts to an insult to the 2nd respondent can
only be decided during the course of the trial. This Court
cannot determine the intent of the petitioner in deliberately
editing the photograph, publishing it, or sending it on
whatsapp. Further, this Court cannot conclude that only on
account of political differences, a false complaint was filed.
When the photograph being edited itself is admitted, and the
2nd respondent stated that the photograph is an insult to her,
this Court cannot interfere and quash the proceedings. The
petitioner can raise all his defences before the trial Court. The
trial Court, without being influenced by the observations made
in this criminal petition, shall adjudicate on the basis of
evidence adduced by both parties during trial.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 12.03.2025
dv
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7030 OF 2021
Dt. 12.03.2025
dv
