Telangana High Court
Mutyala Sailendra vs The State Of Telangana on 11 October, 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Crl.P.No.10879 of 2018
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.286 of 2017 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC.
The petitioner is the sole accused and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant.
The 2nd respondent lodged report with the police alleging that the petitioner, who is resident of neighbouring colony maintaining bike bearing No. AP 28 AG 8105 following her for the last six months and whenever, she along with her cousins Mangitha and Nawaneetha went to market for refreshment, the petitioner talking himself that he is talking to some one and making comments that 'nee bhartha daggara neevu sariga vundalevu natho raa nenu baga chusukunta ani yevvarikaina ee vishayam chebethi nenu champestanu.ani muggurini bediristhunnadu' in vernacular language. Later the petitioner started harassing by his gestures from the top of the building opposite to his residence and requested to take necessary action against the petitioner.
On the strength of the complaint, dated 13.06.2017, Crime No.228 of 2017 was registered and issued FIR for the offence punishable under Section 354-C IPC. In pursuance of FIR, investigation was taken up by the Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and concluded that the evidence collected during investigation is sufficient to proceed against the petitioner and filed charge sheet before the Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC.
2
Even according to the allegations made in the charge sheet, the petitioner committed the offence punishable under Section 354-D IPC and threatened her with dire consequences directing not to disclose the request made by him and gestures etc to any one.
The present petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner has no acquaintance with the 2nd respondent and the witnesses examined by the investigating officer are the close relatives of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the question of subjecting the 2nd respondent to such harassment would not attract the offence punishable under Section 354-D or 506 IPC and requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions while drawing the attention of this Court to the written complaint lodged with the police on 13.06.2017 and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer during investigation to contend that the allegations are not sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Section 354-D and 506 IPC and requested to quash the proceedings.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition on the ground that the material on record would attract the offences prima facie and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
The 2nd respondent made specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioner talking himself that he is talking to some one by mobile asking her to live with him as she is leading unhappy life with her husband and threatened her not to disclose the same to any body. Section 354-D deals with stalking. Any man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such women; or monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking. The allegations made in 3 the complaint, supported by the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. clearly constitute the offence punishable under Section 354-D IPC as the 2nd respondent did not express any interest to interact with the petitioner.
The petitioner allegedly threatened the 2nd respondent to kill her in case she discloses about the request made by him and it falls within the definition of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC, which is punishable under Section 506 IPC. Therefore, I find prima facie material against the petitioner to proceed for various offences he allegedly committed.
In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
______________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 11.10.2018 kvrm