Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.1213 of 2021 alleging stalking and publication of an edited photo of the complainant. The court held intent in editing the photograph could only be determined at trial and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THEHIGH COURTFOR THEASTA-TE OF TELANGANA
weo uf;fDf, Jl i']ylh"'+l^?l-"9? l$l*"'
'Yj
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER
cRlMINALPETITIONNO:7030OF20z',.
{'
o ccj o ur n ari st r/o ""l**, n ilf[?: -fl :,,'fr lt3i i^l'fl'?[3; Alio #'' Jf " "
...Petitioner/Accused
AND
1 TheState of Telangana,Rep by its Public Prosecutor,High Court, Hyderabad nnod )..vears occbeauticianr/o ,'^n1'f .i*3'&53 l{: ilhHi".: il:il ff h: ,fB:3.31'"'
...RespondentNo' 2/De facto Complainant '
Petitionunder Sectton 482 of cr P c Plilig"l['J"i"'l!"i']iifl"'iii3i nn .,,o i i :ir, "' ";"r ",1,I0?l "9":t lff :i !'t ," #iifl i l? iit .lf ' rYJJc L'' "r"r'g i'tr a te'K h a i""",iffi".1 i:.?'.?;J' "[i
l.A.NO:1OF2021
Petitionunder Section 482 of Cr P C pra Ii 3.1[', J.' t:", :J'f H:E T:; ;i: .,r,"0',"=ii"'n,"';:ll1:ir"j,,o;ffi J'1,3xlll Ie":,i'.I i.l q : i [*; ff i:ffi bepleasedt9grT-t '.ti1.":;;0;i on in" tit" ot netitionerin cc. no '' ''#,'^;;;;u, oi.t,i"t,penOingaisPosalof the matn fllassMagistrate,Khamm quash Proceedings'
quash Proceedings' theMemorandumof This Petitioncoming on for hearing' 'lol ,::"t'nn Groundsof Criminalpetin"onano upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kowturu PavanKumar, Advocate i"r.'tn" tti't'"ner and the Sri M' VivekanandaReddy AssistantPublic Prosecutoi on O"n''fof the RespondentNo 1 and of Sri Thomas ror theResPondentNo' 2 ;;;;,;;r""'te
TheCourt madethe following:ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREI{DER CRIMINAL TIONNo.703() 0F. 2o27
OR D ER:
This Crimina_l petition is filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking lo q,_tersh proceedings in C.C.No. 12 13 of 2O2i, on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, l.hammam, Khammam District.
2
under:
,,1r, the exercise ofthe extra-ord'inary power under Artscle226or the inherent powers underSection 482 of theCode of CriminalProcedure'the following categoriesof cases are given by way of illustration whereinsuch power couldbe exercisedeither to preventabuse oftheprocess of any Court or otherwise to securethe ends of justice' though it may not be possibleto lay downany precise'clearly dehned and sufficientlychannelised and inflexibleguidelinesor rigidformulaeand to give exhaustivelist of rnyriad kinds ofcases wherein such powershould be exercised:
(a) wherethe allegationsmadein the First Information Reportor the complaint'even if theyare taken at their face valueand accepted in their entirety do not prima
I 1992 supp (1) sc 335
::
3
facie c.onstitute any offen the ac,:used; --r "'rul,ce or make out a case arJarnst (b) w},t,re the a.llegations i h +L^ ^. n the First information Report ernd o,n". **"t'ots rials' if a,,y, accompanyinll the F.I.R. clo ,rot ai".ro."l ani'vestigati""r"",,L""'f of the ,rode except qnder .-^:-:"-":ectton "J.jilj.:::,,:"stiryinsls;6(I) an order of a Magistrate within tne purview or'!o"t ection 155(2) of the code; (c) where the uncont loverted allegations made in the FIR .r 'complaint the evidence collected in support ,;" the same ,rnd o not disclose the commissior of any offe.ce and make (d) wh.re rh" urr.sr;;""it';. #:l::I"" "ri, ;,; cogniztrbje offence b onlv a no1cognizable offence, ". ::-^ tnvestigation".:"".:" is permitted by a porice oflicer without order of a Magistrate a5 contempr.rt.d under Se< (e) wh e re r h e aregation "'::..t;ii:t;l; "".'::,,", *., are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basi:; of which no prudent person can ever reach a jus: conclusion that there is suflicient ground fo:. proceeding against the accused;
(f) where the.re is an express legal bar engrafted in an; of the provi:;ions of the Code or the concerned Act (under u.hich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institutr.on and continuance of the proceedings and f or where there is a specific provision in the Code Of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance,of the aggrievedparty;
(g) wherea criminalproceedingis manifestlyattended with mralahde and/orwhere the proceeding is
4
maliciouslYinstituted with alulteriormotivefor theaccused and with a view to wreakingvengeance on and Personalgrudge'" spitehim due to Private
,1-
1S thatthe Petitioner' 5. Theallegationin the complaint havingthe taken phone number of 2'i respondent'used to contacther on her phoneand used' to talk to her with double- meaningwords. Thereafter, a photograph that was deriberately editedwas published' and onlytvr'o personswere shown in the photograph'According to the 2'd respondent'the petitioner haddeliberatelyedited the photographto show her in bad light' In thecharge sheet filed and also in the complaint' the phone numbersof petitioner' 2nd respondent' and other details of calls areglven'
,s
")
5
When the photogr aph being edited itself is admitted, and the " 2"a responclent sta ted that the photograph is an insult to her, this Court r:annot interfere and quash the procee<iings. The petitioner can raise ail his defences before the trial (lourt. The trial Court, without being influenced by the observar.ions made rn this crrminal petition, shall adjudicate on th() basis of evidence adduc,ed by both parties during triaI.
or.,..#;'y?Ealr#i,A
//TRUEcoPYtt l\,
To,
1 2 3 4 il.""#n} iqH:l,il"r&, ffi [:t-- u,,:5
4 5 b. ffi33," .; ;;;#; Iffi: xJ;il,"i:ffateroPucl
DL
$
F.qr
HIGH COURT
DATED:12tO3t2025
Itl
\
ORDER
CRLP.No.7030 of 21121
''i -
uA
t'
2 B rt,ril ,;lZ5
ai)
*
PAt Clll:,i
DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
0)Gfo %'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings in C.C.No.1213 of 2021 for alleged stalking and publication of an edited photograph should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhajan Lal and Others v. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶24
1992 supp (1) SC 335
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Telangana
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
