Telangana High Court
Singaraju Chandu, vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3818 of 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner/accused seeking to
quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1786 of 2019 on the file of the XXI
Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Medchal, for the offences
punishable under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short, 'the IPC').
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.10.2025, there
was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical
mode or virtual mode. To give one more opportunity, the matter was
posted to 28.10.2025. On 28.10.2025 also, there was no representation
on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual mode.
To give one more final opportunity to respondent No.2, the matter was
posted to 04.11.2025 under the caption 'for orders'. In spite of the
matter being listed under the caption 'for orders', today also there is no
representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either in physical mode or
virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with
the matter on merits.
3. Heard Mr. P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1 State.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.12.2018, the
de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that her ex-husband
i.e., the petitioner has been harassing her and her daughter, and her
parents following their divorce on 03.09.2017, which took place in
Australia. After the divorce, the petitioner continuously issued life
threats to the complainant and her family, causing them severe distress.
She further stated that she and her daughter came to India on
11.12.2018, but the petitioner continued to threaten them. On
13.12.2018, he allegedly warned that he would file a criminal complaint
against them and threatened her family with dire consequences. Hence,
the present complaint has been lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
not committed any offence. Even according to the allegations made in
the complaint and the charge sheet, the petitioner neither harassed nor
threatened respondent No.2, and the ingredients of Sections 506 and
507 of the IPC are not attracted. He further submits that the petitioner
and respondent No.2 obtained a decree of divorce on 03.09.2017 from
the Australian Family Court (Parramatta Family Court), Sydney,
Australia, vide Case No. PAC 2180 of 2018. In the application filed
before the Australian Court, respondent No.2 herself specifically
mentioned that the child lives alternately between the petitioner and
respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 violated the terms and
conditions of the decree of divorce and did not permit the petitioner to
have custody of the child, the petitioner filed G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019
under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Aggrieved by the orders
passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.
No.634 of 2019 in G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019, the petitioner approached
this Court by filing F.C.A. No.225 of 2019, wherein this Court granted
interim stay and directed respondent No.2 not to remove the child from
Hyderabad during the pendency of the said case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has also approached this Court by filing W.P. No.26266 of
2019, seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent Nos.1 to 4
therein to produce the minor child. While the above disputes were
pending between the petitioner and respondent No.2, respondent No.2
lodged the present complaint with false allegations. He vehemently
contends that, as on the date of the alleged offences, the petitioner was
in Australia, and that respondent No.2, with an intention to harass the
petitioner, falsely implicated him in the present case. Hence, the
ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code are not
made out, and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner
amounts to clear abuse of the process of law.
7. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that
respondent No.2 has made specific allegations against the petitioner,
stating that he threatened her and her family members with dire
consequences. However, the ingredients of the offences punishable
under Sections 506 and 507 of the IPC are not attracted against the
petitioner. The Investigating Officer, after conducting a detailed
investigation, filed the final report. The grounds raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which are
required to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full-
fledged trial. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the
proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid contentions.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, and
matrimonial disputes arose between them. The parties obtained a decree
of divorce from the Australian Family Court (Parramatta Family Court),
Sydney, Australia, in Case No. PAC 2180 of 2018, dated 03.09.2017.
The record further discloses that the petitioner filed G.W.O.P. No.267
of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.
In the said O.P., the petitioner filed an application vide I.A. No.634 of
2019 seeking custody of the minor child, which was dismissed on
23.10.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed F.C.A.
No.225 of 2019 before this Court and also filed W.P. No.26266 of 2019
seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein to produce the
minor child before this Court. This Court, by a common judgment dated
23.06.2023, dismissed the above cases, directing the trial Court to
dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, and further directed
both parties to cooperate with the Court for early disposal of the matter.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, G.W.O.P. No.267 of
2019 is still pending before the trial Court.
9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the issue relating
to the entitlement of custody of the child between the parties has to be
adjudicated by the trial Court in the pending G.W.O.P. No.267 of 2019.
As stated supra, there are no specific allegations leveled against the
petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 506 and 507 of the
IPC.
10. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 is well settled by the decision in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such
as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence,
are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or
where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process,
while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure
the ends of justice.
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
11. For the foregoing reasons and the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra), this Court is of the
considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings
against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1786 of 2019 on the file of the
XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, are hereby
quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:04.11.2025
Pav/sa
