Partly allowed

Singaraju SomaSekhar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Sept 2022CRLP/6044/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal charges. The Court quashed the case for stalking under Section 354D IPC but directed the trial court to proceed with charges of criminal intimidation and insult under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case under Section 354D IPC was quashed, but proceedings under Sections 504 and 506 IPC were directed to proceed to trial.

Singaraju SomaSekhar, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF^SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6044 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Singaraju SomaSekhar, S/o. Balasubramanyam, Aged about^{24 yearc, Occ. student,} R/o H No. 4-47, Rachapalem Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor^District,AP.

¶9

...PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court^{for the Stateof} Telangana At Hyderabad, High Court Building through SHO PS^Meerpet, Rachakonda

¶12

Kurapati Amrutha, W/o Ravindra Naidu, Aged about^{45 years,Occ house wife,} R/o H NO.305-A, Road No 6, Srinilayam township, Balapur^{(M), RangaReddy} District, TS.

¶13

. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO. COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High^{Courtmay be} pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No. 5'168 of 2018, on the file of ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda, at LB Nagar, against^the Petitioner/Accused.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No 5168 of 2018, on the file of ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda, at LB Nagar including the appearance of the Accused till the disposal of the Main Quash Petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.^Ravinder Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.^2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O44 of 2019

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This petition is filed for quashment of C.C.No.5168 of 2018 registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 354D, 5O4 and 5O6 IPC.

¶23

The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:

¶24

On 07.06.2018 at 1O.0O a.m, the de-facto complainant has filed a complaint stating that her son and daughter are in Phillipins for stuciy and work. There are some issues between one Singaraju and her son in Philliphins. The petitioner, who is the brother of that Singaraju, has threatened the de-facto complainant and her husband over phone and also abused them in filthy language. The petitioner has come to Kirana shop when her husband was in the store and has taken photographs of her husband and sent them to the de-facto complainant,s son and daughter in Philtiphins and sent a message that they will kill them. The petitioner has also sent audio message to the defacto complainant while abusing the de-facto complainant,s daughter in lilthy language. It is also mentioned in the complaint that on 27 .O1.2OLA at 10.10. p.m., the de_facto

¶25

¶26

complainant has called the petitioner to enquire about the audio message sent to her in respect of her daughter, but the petitioner has abused in filthy language, which cannot be heard and repeated and further he a,lso threatened her that he will kill her husband.

¶27

Police have registered a case in Crime No.432 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 354D, 504 and 506 IPC. During the course of investigation the statements of the de-facto complainalt and her husband were recorded and filed the charge sheet alleging that the petitioner has committed the offences under Section 354D, 504 and 5O6 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition on the following grounds:

¶28

i. There are disputes between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant's brother in respect of money to be paid to the consultants for sending the daughter and son of the de-fdcto complainant to Phillipins.

¶29

ii. An altercation and heated arguments took place between the petitioner's brother and son of the de-facto complainant in Phillipins. Some of the Phillipins have organized a mob of students and attacked the brother of the petitioner in Cebu cit5r.

¶30

¶31

The brother of the petitioner received injuries, then local police have intervened. The son of the de-facto complainant and the mob organized by him have demanded the brother of the petitioner (Gnanasekar) to pay 22,OOO pisos i.e., Phillipins currency when he^''r,ras in tourist police cell. A complaint is filed stating that the brother of the de-facto complainant has swindled 22,OOO pisos on which a crimina,l case has been filed and the de-facto complainant has realized that the criminal case fled by her son in Phillipins is taking reverse turn and son ofthe de-facto complainant was likely to arrest by the Phillipins police, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner.

¶32

iii. This petition is filed falsely in order to compromise the issue in respect of payment of 22,OOO pisos by the de-facto complainant's son in Phillipins. There is no materia_l in the charge sheet and statement of witnesses was recorded only of husband and no independent witnesses are available. Thq petitioner is a student of 24 years and the de-facto complainant is aged of 45 years and the allegation that the petitioner has been staking her to outrage her modest5r is baseless. Even if the allegations in the entire charge sheet are accepted, no offence is made out. There are no overt acts to fasten the liability of stalking and prayed the Court to quash the criminal case.

¶33

¶34

4 Section 354D IPC runs as under:

¶35

"354D. Stalking.--(1) Any man who--

¶36

(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

¶37

(ii) monitors the use by a womall of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:

¶38

Provided that such conduct shal1 not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--

¶39

(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 deteclion of crime by the State; or

¶40

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

¶41

(iii) in the particular circumsta-nces such conduct was reasonable and justified.

¶42

(21 Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on Iirst conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, ard 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 live years, and shall a-lso be liable to fine."

¶43

In order to fasten the criminal liability under Section

¶44

354D IPC, the petitioner has to follow the de-facto complainant for fostering personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or the petitioner

¶45

¶46

monitors the use of internet, email or any form of eiectronic communication by the de-facto complainant.

¶47

In the case on hand, according to the de-facto complainant the petitioner has contacted the de-facto complainant three, four times, sent voice messages and the petitioner and the de-facto complainant spoke to each other and the petitioner stated to have abused in most hlthy language and threatened her with dire consequences of killing her husband. On perusal of all these allegations, it is clear that the petitioner has contacted the de-facto complainant repeatedly in respect of threatening her and abusing her and her family members.

¶48

In order to attract Section 354D IPC, the contacting and attempt to contact shall be in respect of outraging the modest5r of the woman. The intention here is to continue the relation with ttre de-facto complainant in spite of clear indication of her disinterest. Here both the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are at loggerheads. The petitioner has been calling the de-facto complainant in order to abuse, threatened etc., and not for any other purpose. Therefore, on perusal of the entire charge sheet, there are no ingredients, which attract the offence

¶49

¶50

under Section 354D IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 354D IPC cannot be fastened against the petitioner.

¶51

However, the statement of the de-facto complainant and the conclusion of the investigation of police would reveal that the petitioner has come to her shop, took pictures of the defacto complainant's husband, send them to the de-facto complainant's daughter and son, who are in Phillipins. The petitioner has allegedly abused the de-facto complainant in most filthy language, which, according to the de-facto complainant, cannot be revealed. Not only that he has sent the picture of de-facto complainant's husband to the children of the de-facto complainant at Phillipins and told them that the petitioner will kill the husband of the de-facto complainant.

¶52

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted vehemently that the petitioner is innocent and he is nothing to do with the alleged offence and the false case has been foidted because there are disputes between the petitioner and the defacto complainant.

¶53

In order to prove whether the incident has really had taken place or whether a false case has been foisted by the defacto complainant on account of the incidents t-hat took place in

¶54

¶55

Phillipins are the questions of fact. Unless a full fledged trial is conducted by way of recording the evidence of the witnesses, it cannot be said that no such offence took place as alleged by the de-facto complainant.

¶56

1 1 . While considering the petition under Section 4g2 Cr.p.C., this Court will see that in case if the version of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is accepted to be true, whether there is a material to hold that the petitioner has not committed the offences alleged against him.

¶57

¶58

As discussed above, the contents of complaint arrd the investigation of police would reveal that there is a strong prima facie material to conclude that the petitioner has threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences, which attracts the ingredients of Sections 5O4 and 506 IpC. Therefore, the case against the petitioner cannot be quashed for the offence under Sections 504 and 506 IpC.

¶59

In view of the discussion made above, the criminal petition is allowed in part and the case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 354D IpC is quashed. However, t}re case against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 506 and 504 IPC cannot be quashed. Therefore, the trial Court is

¶60

¶61

¶62

directed to proceed with the triar in respect of the orrence under Sections 504 and 506 IpC as per law uninfluenced by the comments made by this court i' respect of the merits of the case.

¶63

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶64

¶65

Sd/. T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY.REGISTRAR (J.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Il Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda, at L.B.Nagar.

¶70

The Station House efficer, Rachakonda p.S. Meerpet.

¶71

One CC to SRt. A RAVTNDER REDDy Advocate [OpUC]

¶72

4 Two ccs to the Additionar puBlrc pRosECUTOR , High court for the state of

¶73

Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶74

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210912022

s t1i
I
Of-
? (-
2 B UEI ?TI l

¶81

ORDER

¶82

CRLP.No.6044 of 2019

¶83

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶84

Singaraju SomaSekhar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singaraju SomaSekhar, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotla Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

R. Praveen Kumar , Praveen Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Vasarla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Viabhav Tripathi Vs The State of Telangana and another

Pottabathula Shekhar , Chiranjeeni Vs The State of Telangana

Kummari Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana and another