Telangana High Court
Sri.Vivek Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 9 March, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10018 of 2022
ORDER:
1.This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.2605 of 2022 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendernagar, which case is filed for the offence under Section 354-D, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent wife lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner herein was filing false cases against her alleging prostitution and having multiple sex partners. 2nd Respondent was showing sex videos to their child. It is further stated in the complaint that the petitioner filed complaint in 1098 Child Welfare Line Centre that the child was being abused and she was into flesh trade. Against the petitioner, four criminal cases were pending and he had caused bodily harm and also torturing her calling her as prostitute. It is also alleged that he was sharing her phone number to several others who are making phone calls from unknown numbers. There are several matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also 2 various Courts. However, without prosecuting the said cases, he was harassing, stalking and torturing her.
3. The Police, Narsingi, having received the compliant registered the same for the offence under Sections 354-D, 504 and 506 of IPC and having investigated the case, filed charge sheet for the said offences.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner submits that the petitioner/husband and the 2nd respondent/wife have been fighting cases in Courts since 2017. They were married in the year 2013 and a son was born on 18.10.2016 at New Delhi. The petitioner was working in Netherlands and 2nd respondent joined him at Netherlands. However, on 09.06.2017, the 2nd respondent came back with her son informing the petitioner that her mother was being treated in Hospital. However, the petitioner found that the 2nd respondent is blocking the phone of the petitioner and the reason of ailment was not correct. Though the petitioner was making several attempts to meet 2nd respondent and his son, she did not allow.
3
5. On 09.11.2017, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint in the Woman Police, which was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. The 2nd respondent also filed petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and also under DVC Act. While the issues were pending, the petitioner filed GWOP No.47 of 2018 for custody of the minor son and the Court allowed visitation rights. Though the Court had directed the petitioner to visit his son, the 2nd respondent was causing problems and did not adhere to the directions of the Court granting visitation rights to the petitioner. Both the petitioners have been going around the police station and the Courts by filing petitions after petitions. Crime was registered against both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and complaints made against one another.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that none of the provisions of Section 354-D of IPC are attracted. The 2nd respondent is the wife and on account of disputes, several complaints and counter complaints have been filed. Except assuming that this petitioner was stalking her and harassing 4 her, there are no instances narrated. Such assumptions cannot be made basis to continue criminal prosecution against this petitioner. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1677 of 2021 dated 19.04.2021.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner is indulging in harassing the 2nd respondent over a period of time and there are specific allegations in the complaint.
8. To attract an offence under Section 354-D of IPC, 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 woman would amount to stalking. "Any man" in Section 354-D would include husband also. The word 'woman' used in Section would include the wife.
9. In the present case, when the spouses are fighting with each other in the courts, it cannot be said that false complaint has been made. Even going by the complaint there are several disputes before several Courts which are pending adjudication and the 2nd respondent is specifically stating that the 5 petitioner and others have been following her making phone calls. Further, it is also mentioned that the petitioner has been threatening her continuously. Going by the complaint, prima facie, ingredients of Section 354-D and 506 of IPC are made out. For the said reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court shall draw its own conclusions on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of trial. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 09.03.2023 kvs 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.10018 of 2022 Dated: 09.03.2023 kvs