1. Heard Sri E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri E.Sudhanshu Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State, Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.1205 of 2024 pending on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad.
Facts of the case:-
3. The petitioner herein is A.2. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are punishable under Section 120-B, 386, 409 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 ( for short, ‘the IT Act’).
4. On the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent dated 01.12.2024, the Police Panjagutta, registered a case in Cr.No.1205 of 2024 against the petitioner herein and other accused for the aforesaid offences.
5. As per the said complaint dated 01.12.2024 of 2nd respondent, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein and A.1 are as follows:-
i. On 21.03.2021, he started the "Farmers First Foundation" at GS chambers, Nagarjuna Circle, Panjagutta, with an object to encourage Organic farming by Providing Farmers with modern techniques and creating business opportunities through stalls.
ii. On 25.09.2022, he organized a program at "Konda Bhudevi Garden" near new bus stand Siddipet, where he financially supported the families of 100 agricultural tenant farmers who had committed suicide by providing Rs 1 lakh to each family, in total Rs. 1 Crore.
iii. On 26.03.2023, he distributed Rs. 1 lakh each to 150 widows of Farmers who had committed suicide.
iv. Since he did not invite A.1, the Minister and local MLA, he bore grudge on him as his charitable activities were gaining significant public support, and he was becoming increasingly popular in the public.
v. The petitioner along with A.1 and others criminally conspired to harm him posing a threat by falsely implicating him in false cases to tarnish his reputation and they threatened him with dire consequences, if he did not stop his charity work in his constituency.
vi. On 23.01.2023, he announced plans to start a small scale "Aggipetta Macha" company (Match box company) in Siddipet district intending to uplift the lives of poor families.
vii. On 04.02.2023, a false Case vide Cr.No. 49/2023 for the offences under Sections 376 read with 511 IPC was registered against him at the instance of A.1.
viii. He was arrested and brought to the ACP office in Shamirpet and later remanded to judicial Custody.
ix. He began receiving threatening messages on his mobile Phone from unknown numbers, questioning as to how he is getting money and he has to meet those persons.
x. On 15.03.2023, he joined in BJP party in Delhi in the presence of BJP leaders like Sri. Eetala Rajender and Sri. Tarun Chugh. In April 2023, he was provided financial assistance to farmers in Siddipet affected by heavy rains.
xi. On 28.04.2023, while he was in his office, at Panjagutta, policemen in civil clothes raided his office, took him into custody and produced him before the petitioner, Task Force Police Officer, who threatened him stating that A.1 was angry at him for organizing programs in his constituency without his consent
xii. They also threatened him that they would close his chapter if he does not change his party. When he refused, they took his phone number, took him to CCS police station where two more cases vide Cr.Nos.908 of 2023 and 909 of 2023 were registered against him. Later they returned his phone and was sent to judicial remand.
xiii. Later he was enlarged on bail in both cases.
xiv. He was again implicated in a false case vide Cr.No. 522 of 2023 of Ghatkesar Police station on the complaint filed by Mr. Avinash.
xv. On 29.08.2023, he received an e-mail from ‘Apple’ (threat notification@ apple. Com) warning him that his I-phone might be targeted by State sponsored attackers. The e-mail stated that such attackers could remotely access his sensitive data, communication, and even devices, microphone or camera.
xvi. He aspired to contest the MLA seat for Siddipet on BJP ticket, but when he was not nominated, he joined BSP party and secured the MLA ticket.
xvii. During the election campaign, he contacted numerous supporters and followers. Many of them later informed him that they had received threatening calls warning them not to attend his events. These individuals also reported that the caller knew about their conversations which led him to suspect that his phone was being tapped.
xviii. He suspect that A.1, using State intelligence resources, was monitoring his moments, activities, his associates and his family members to spoil his political career.
xix. His Mobile Nos. 9014062471, 9593766666 as well as his wife's mobile No.9100245853 were illegally tapped. He suspected that A.1 abusing his power as a minister influenced the Police officials to monitor his activities.
xx. The Police department did not book a case on his petition and did not take any action against the persons who had put surveillance over him, his relatives, his associates and harassed him.
6. The petitioner sought to quash the said FIR against him contending as follows:-
i. The allegations made against him are vague and baseless.
ii. There is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint.
iii. 2nd respondent failed to explain the said delay.
iv. On the very same allegations i.e. with regard to phone tapping, a case in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was registered with the very same police station and on completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and other accused vide PRC No.260 of 2024.
v. Therefore, on the very same allegations, registration of second FIR in Cr.No.1205 of 2024 against the petitioner is impermissible.
vi. 2nd respondent has submitted a complaint to the Director General of Police only on 19.06.2024 making certain allegation against A.1.
vii. The statement of 2nd respondent in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 01.09.2024.
viii. The petitioner has lodged a complaint with the Police concerned and if the Police concerned failed to act upon the same, he has to avail other remedies available under law such as filing of a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. etc. Instead of doing so, he has submitted representation to the Director General of Police only on 19.06.2024 and filed writ petition vide W.P. No.19502 of 2024 seeking a direction to the DGP and others to act upon the complaint lodged by him. Thereafter, he withdrew the said writ petition and therefore, the said writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, on 22.11.2024.
ix. After lapse of considerable time, He has lodged a complaint dated 01.12.2024 against the petitioner herein and others. The contents of the said complaint and his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged, more particularly Section 386 and 409 of IPC. Even then, without considering the said aspects, the Police, Panjagutta registered the aforesaid FIR.
x. There are several cases registered against the 2nd respondent. In some cases, he was arrested by the Investigating Officer. He never complained about the alleged harassment of the petitioner with regard to phone tapping etc.
xi. The petitioner was arrested in Cr.No.243 of 2024 on 29.03.2024 and he was released on bail only on 30.01.2025.
7. Both the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent opposed the present criminal petition contending as follows:-
i. The allegations in Cr.No.243 of 2024 are against the society and the allegations against the petitioner herein in Cr.No.1205 of 2024 with regard to 2nd respondent individually. Therefore, registration of Cr.No.1205 of 2024 cannot be treated as second complaint.
ii. A.2 worked as Additional Superintendent of Police in Nalgonda, got close acquaintance with A.1 the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, at that relevant point of time. The said fact was admitted by him, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In connivance with the A.1, the petitioner committed the aforesaid offences which are serious in nature.
iii. A.1 and A.6 in Cr.No. 243 of 2024 are absconding.
iv. He is part of conspiracy in tapping phones of several people including judges of this Court. Though he was retired in August, 2020, he was appointed as OSD and continued his duties as DCP, Task Force which is against law.
v. There was no delay in lodging the complaint.
vi. There is allegation of continuous torture of 2nd respondent in the complaint dated 01.12.2024. Investigation is pending and therefore, it cannot be scuttled at the threshold.
vii. Apart from the phone tapping, there are other allegation of torture by the petitioner in the present crime.
viii. A.1 in the subject crime, the then Minister, has grudge over the 2nd respondent and therefore, at the instance of police implicated him in several cases.
ix. The 2nd respondent contested as a Member of Assembly, from Siddipet Constituency, in which A.1 is representing. Therefore, A.1 bore grudge against 2nd respondent.
x. The petitioner/A.2 harassed the 2nd respondent. He directed his subordinates to produce 2nd respondent before him in the Task Force office and on production, he made the 2nd respondent to kneel down.
xi. He has shown the same through video.
xii. Since A.1 was in power, out of fear, 2nd respondent did not lodge a complaint immediately on getting message from ‘Apple’ on 29.08.2023. Thereafter, he submitted a representation to DGP on 19.06.2024. Therefore, there is no delay.
8. Sri E.Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent made their submissions extensively.
9. Sri E.Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel placed reliance on the principle laid down by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Tupakula Appa Rao vs. State of A.P. (2001) SCC OnLine AP 1575, Patnam Narender Reddy vs. State of Telangana (Order dated 29.11.2024 in Crl.P.No.32798 of 2024), the judgment of the Apex Court in T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 350 and Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP (Crl.A.No.2344 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl)No.3152 of 2023). Smt. K.Mathamma vs. State of Telangana 2022 (1)ALT (Crl) 12 (T.S.)
10. Learned Public prosecutor placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore (Crl.A.No (arising out of SLP(Crl) No.16358 of2024)), Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao vs. State ACB, CIU, Hyderabad (Crl.P.No.15847 of 2024,dated 07.01.2025) and on common order dated 29.04.2022 in Crl.P.No.1232 of 2022 and batch.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THIS COURT:-
11. In the light of the said submissions, certain dates and events which are relevant and same are as follows:-
i. On 10.03.2024, Cr.No.243 of 2024 was registered by the Police, Panjagutta, on the complaint lodged by Sri Dandugudu Ramesh, Additional Superintendent of Police.
ii. On 29.03.2024, the petitioner was arrested in the said crime.
iii. On 19.06.2024, 2nd respondent submitted a representation to the DGP with a request to take action alleging that his phone was tapped illegally.
iv. On 15.07.2024, he has filed W.P.No.19502 of 2024 seeking a direction to DGP and others to consider the said representation.
v. On 01.09.2024, his statement was recorded in Cr.No.243 of 2024 under Section 161 of CrPC.
vi. On 22.11.2024, this Court dismissed W.P.No.19502 of 2024 as withdrawn.
vii. On 01.12.2024, he has lodged a complaint with Police, Panjagutta at 23.00 hours and immediately on receipt of the said complaint, Police, Panjagutta registered the subject crime.
viii. On 30.01.2025, this Court granted bail to the petitioner in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and he was released on the same day on furnishing sureties.
12. In the representation dated 19.06.2024, submitted to DGP, Telangana, 2nd respondent has stated that he received e-mail from Apple company with regard to phone tapping relating to mobile No.9014062471 and 95937066666. He received information on 29.08.2023. The Ex-Minister (A.1) in the previous government influenced the officials in Police Department, A.2 and his team, concentrated on his moments and also his office at Siddipet. He contested as a Member of Legislative Assembly from Siddipet Constituency in the elections held in November, 2023, as a BSP Candidate. During the said time also, A.1 influenced the Police officials of the State and harassed him politically, which disrupted A.1’s political career and made 2nd respondent a political hurdle for him. Therefore, A.1, using his political influence, implicated him in several criminal cases and tapped his phone, harassed him mentally. On the instructions of A.1, A.2 along with his staff, started following his conversations over phone with his wife, family members and friends in politics, he has threatened them. This constant surveillance disturbed privacy of 2nd respondent. The petitioner/A.2 and A.1 also obtained call data and taken photographs from his phone and placed them on ‘You Tube’ social media etc.
13. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024, while reiterating the aforesaid facts, 2nd respondent further stated that the petitioner at the instance of A.1 implicated him in several cases including crime No.49 of 2023 pending on the file of P.S.Shameerpet, for the offences under Section 376 read with 511 of IPC. Thus, petitioner and A.1 hatched a plan to malign his reputation, discourage and demoralize him as he is doing charity.
14. He further stated about joining of BJP party, extending financial assistance to farmers effected in heavy rains in Siddipet in April, 2023, thereafter, he received threatening messages to his mobile phone from unknown persons with dire consequences.
15. On 28.04.2023, while he was present at his Panjagutta office, policemen in civil clothes raided his office, took him to their custody and produced him before A.2. The petitioner/A.2 threatened him to change his party to BRS from BJP and not to organize any programmes in A.1’s constituency. He further stated about registration of two crimes i.e. Cr.Nos.908 and 909 of 2023 against him. Subsequently CCS Police have sent him to judicial remand in the said cases.
16. On 29.08.2023, he received an e-mail from threat ‘notification @ apple.com’ in which they specified that ‘apple’ believes that he was being targeted by state-sponsored attackers. He also received threatening calls to his Apple ID ‘Chakre.chikki@ gmail.com’. These attackers are likely to target him individually because of who he is or what he does. If his device is compromised by a State sponsored attacker, they may be able to remotely access his sensitive data communications, or even the camera and microphone. On receipt of said message from Apple, he updated his i-phone as per the instructions received through mail and he thought that his phone was in tapping.
17. Meanwhile, he did not get MLA ticket from Siddipet constituency from BJP party, as such he joined in BSP party and got MLA ticket for Siddipet constituency. During election campaign, he received threatening calls. Therefore, he suspected that A.1 might be tapping his phone. A.1 was monitoring his moments, activities of his associates and his family members to sabotage his political career and unlawfully influence the outcome of the elections.
18. It is further stated that after general assembly elections, he came to know through print and electronic media about the news regarding phone tapping case.
19. On observing the same, he has realized that his phone Nos.9014062471 and also 0593766666 as well as his wife’s phone number i.e. 9100245853 were illegally tapped and his every moment was being observed. As he got good image, refused to join in BRS party, contested as MLA from BSP party and highlighted the illegal activities done by A.1 in Siddipet Constituency, A.1 bore grudge against him by abusing his power as Minister, influenced and instructed some police official to tap his phones to observe his activities and got false cases booked against him. Therefore, 2nd respondent requested the police to do justice to him. He has also submitted the hard copy of e-mail received from i-phone company to his e-mail for the purpose of investigation.
20. 2nd respondent has filed W.P.No.19502 of 2024 to declare the action of DGP in not conducting an enquiry with regard to the petitioner’s phone tapping in pursuance of his representation dated 19.06.2024, as illegal. In the said affidavit also, he has stated about tapping of his phone. He has not made any complaint that the petitioner and A.1 harassed him. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.11.2024. Thereafter, he has lodged a complaint with the police, Panjaguta only on 01.12.2024.
21. Even in the said complaint also, his main grievance is with regard to tapping of phone and the suspicion was on A.1.
22. It is apt to note that in the representation dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, statement given by him under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024, dated 01.09.2024, in the affidavit filed in W.P.No.19502 of 2024 and in the complaint dated 01.12.2024 lodged with P.S.Panjagutta, 2nd respondent has not made any allegation with regard to extortion, criminal breach of trust by a pubic servant, criminal intimidation and computer related offences by the petitioner/A.2 and A.1. He has made allegations with regard to phone tapping in the representation dated 19.06.2024 to DGP, statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and affidavit in W.P.No.19502 of 2024. Absolutely, there is no whisper about the criminal breach of trust by public servant, extortion, criminal intimidation and computer related offences.
23. In the light of the same, it is relevant to extract the following sections of IPC and IT Act:-
"383. Extortion.—
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.
409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent.—
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer-chant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
503. Criminal intimidation.—
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Section 66 of the IT Act:- Computer related offences. -
If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
Section 43 of IT Act.
43. Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc . -
If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network,-
(a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource;
(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;
(c) introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network; (d)damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network; (e)disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;
(f)denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means; (g)provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder;
(h)charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network,
(i)destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means; (j)steal, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage;
he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected."
24. In Salib @ Shalu @ Salim (supra), the Apex Court dealt with the ingredients of extortion in terms of Sections 383 of IPC and punishment for extortion under Section 386 of IPC. The Apex Court held that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. Illustrations to the Section given in the IPC make this perfectly clear.
25. In the said case, nowhere the first informant has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs.10 lakhs to the accused persons. Thus, the Apex Court held that there is nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of possession of property (money) by the person put in fear. In the absence of anything to even remotely suggest that the first informant parted with a particular amount after being put to fear of any injury, no offence under Section 386 of IPC can be said to have been made out.
26. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has also laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
With the said findings, relying on the parameters laid down in Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court quashed the FIR against the accused therein.
27. As discussed supra, in the present case also, in the complaint, dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, in Cr.No.243 of 2024, in the writ affidavit in W.P.No.19602 of 2024 and in the complaint dated 01.12.2024, there is no whisper/allegation against the petitioner herein that there was actual delivery of possession of property/money by the petitioner herein by putting 2nd respondent – defacto-complainant in fear. In the absence of the same, registration of FIR for the offence under Section 386 of IPC against the petitioner is impermissible and it is liable to be quashed.
28. With regard to the offence under Section 409 of IPC, there should be entrustment with property or with any dominion over property in his capacity as a public servant. As discussed supra, in the present case, the petitioner did not whisper about the same in the complaint, dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, in Cr.No.243 of 2024, in the writ affidavit in W.P.No.19602 of 2024 and in the complaint dated 01.12.2024. The allegation against the petitioner herein/A.2 is only with regard to tapping of phone.
29. With regard to criminal intimidation, there should be threat with any injury, to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause harm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat amounts to criminal intimidation. As discussed supra, in the present case, there is no allegation of criminal intimidation in the representation dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and in writ affidavit in W.P.No.19502 of 2024. Even in the complaint dated 01.12.2024 submitted by 2nd respondent, there is no allegation with regard to computer related offences by the 2nd respondent in the same.
30. It is apt to note that 2nd respondent lodged complaint dated 01.12.2024 with P.S.Panjagutta making the aforesaid allegations against petitioner and A.1 which are not mentioned in the representation dated 19.06.2024 submitted to DGP, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and in the affidavit filed in W.P.No.19502 of 2024. Thus, the 2nd respondent improved his version in the complaint dated 01.12.2024 and submitted the said complaint to P.S.Panjagutta.
31. The petitioner in the said Crime No.243 of 2024 was in judicial custody from 29.08.2023 to 30.01.2025. The Investigating Officer has already completed investigation and laid charge sheet vide PRC No.260 of 2024. The statement of 2nd respondent herein was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in the said crime on 01.09.2024 itself as L.W.60.
32. In the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024, in the complaint dated 01.12.2024 of 2nd respondent, the allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are with regard to the tapping of his phone. Registration of 2nd FIR with regard to very same allegations of phone tapping is impermissible. The said issue is no more res integra. On consideration of the several aspects, including the principle laid down by the Apex Court in T.T.Anthony (supra), Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India (2020) 14 SCC 12, Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah vs. CBI (2013) 6SCC 348, Jakir Hussain Kosangi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018) (4) ALD 180 (DB) in Jakka Vinod Reddy vs. State of Telangana (2021) (2)Law Summary 32 = 2021 (2)ALT (Crl) 171 this Court held registration of 2nd FIR on the same set of allegations, is impermissible and further held that in the following cases registration of multiple FIRs is permissible:-
"20. The sum and substance of the above said judgments is that there is no embargo for registration of two FIRs on the following circumstances/grounds:
(a) where the allegations made in both the FIRs are from different spectrum, where there are different versions from different persons;
(b) same set of facts may constitute different offences;
(c) where there are two distinct offences having different ingredients;
(d) where the allegations are different and distinct;
(e) when there are rival versions in respect of same episode, they would normally take shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried out under both of them by the same Investigating Agency."
33. As discussed supra, with regard to the tapping of phone, the allegations in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and in the present crime vide Cr.No.1205 of 2024 are same, and both the complaints are registered by the very same Police Station i.e.P.S. Panjagutta. Therefore, the contents of statement of defacto-complainant /2nd respondent recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and contents of complaint dated 01.12.2024 are with regard to taping of phone and therefore, registration of 2nd FIR i.e. Cr.No.1205 of 2024 by the very same police, Panjagutta is impermissible. Without considering the said aspects, Police, Panjagutta, registered Cr.No.1205 of 2024 against the petitioner herein/A.2 on 01.12.2024, when he was in judicial custody in Cr.No.243 of 2024. Therefore, registration of Cr.No.1205 of 2024 is in violation of procedure laid down under law and also contrary to principle laid down by Apex Court and this Court in the afore-stated judgments.
34. It is relevant to note that 2nd respondent was arrested in several cases mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he was produced before learned Magistrates concerned. But he never complained of alleged harassment by petitioner herein and A.1.
35. As discussed supra, the contents of complaint dated 01.12.2024 lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences more particularly, the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 386, 409, 506 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act, i.e. extortion, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, criminal intimidation and computer related offences.
36. It is relevant to note that there is abnormal delay in lodging complaint dated 01.12.2024 by the 2nd respondent. As discussed supra, even according to 2nd respondent, police in plain clothes took him to Panjagutta Police Station and produced before petitioner/A.2 on 28.04.2023, he received message from Apple company on 29.08.2023. Whereas, he has submitted representation to DGP on 19.06.2024, filed writ petition on 15.07.2024. His statement in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was recorded on 01.09.2024 and thereafter, he withdrew W.P.No. 19502 of 2024 on 22.11.2024. He has lodged the present complaint with Police, Panjagutta on 01.12.2024. Thus, there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint against the petitioner herein. There is no explanation much less plausible explanation by the 2nd respondent with regard to the said delay.
37. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent submitted that A.1 was Cabinet Minister at that relevant point of time, A.2 has close acquaintance with A.1 and therefore, out of fear, 2nd respondent did not lodge complaint against A.1 and A.2. Thus, there is delay.
38. It is apt to note that there was change of power in State of Telangana in December, 2023 itself. Even then, 2nd respondent did not lodge complaint against petitioner and A.1 immediately thereafter. He has submitted representation for the first time, only on 19.06.2024 to the DGP. Thus, there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint against the petitioner and A.1.
39. With regard to the unexplained abnormal delay, the Apex Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N. (2022) 15 SCC 164
"22. There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint. As held by this Court in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar [Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093] , inordinate delay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The relevant extract from the judgment is extracted below : (SCC p. 153, para 7)
“7. … Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if reasonable, plausible and sufficient explanation is tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it.”
23. In the present case, the respondent has provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show-cause notice, and the complaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings.
24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint."
40. In Mudavath Jyothi vs. The State of Telangana (In Crl.P.No.6427 of 2019, dated 01.06.2021 of Telangana High Court.) on consideration of the fact that there was delay of 69 days in lodging the complaint and also considering other facts, quashed proceedings against the petitioner therein.
41. On consideration of the same, vide order dated 06.02.2025, this Court directed the investigating Officer not to arrest A.2 and investigation may go on.
42. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigating Officer has recorded the statement of 2nd respondent as L.W.1, Sri Chiluka Ganesh, (2nd respondent’s wife’s cousin) as L.W.2, Sri Pachimatla Shravan, nephew of 2nd respondent as L.W.3, Mangalarapu Sai @ Sai, Associate of 2nd respondent as L.W.4, Sri G.Chandrasekhar, brother of 2nd respondent as L.W.5, Sri Anasuri Veerababu, employee of 2nd respondent, as L.W.6, Mittapalli Abhilash, brother of L.W.4, as L.W.7, Satish Kumar, employee of 2nd respondent as L.W.8, Gaddameedi Karthik, Assistant of 2nd respondent as L.W.9, Mannepalli Sai Manoj, personal Assistant of 2nd respondent, as L.W.10, Sri Kondagiri Dinesh, Friend of L.W.9 as L.W.11, Khaleel Pasha, Inspector of Police, as L.W.12, Ganagoni Ramesh, employee of 2nd respondent, as L.W.13, Giramaina Nagaraju, Office Boy and Driver of 2nd respondent, as L.W.14, Bhoompalli Yadagiri, resident of Siddipet, as L.W.15. Investigation is pending. He has furnished the copies of the said statements. Perused the same. None of the aforesaid witnesses stated about extortion, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, criminal intimidation and computer related offences of R.2 by the petitioner and A.1.
43. As discussed supra, the complaint dated 01.12.2024 of 2nd respondent lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences, there is abnormal delay in lodging the said complaint, 2nd respondent failed to explain the same. A case in Cr.No.243 of 2024 was registered against the petitioner herein/A.2 with regard to tapping of phone, he was arrested and in judicial custody for about 11 months. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and others vide P.R.C.No.260 of 2024.
44. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 2nd respondent falsely implicated A.1 in the present case with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. There is no dispute that A.1 is a former Minister and Sitting MLA from Siddipet Constituency. 2nd respondent contested from the said Constituency against A.1. There is political rivalry between A.1 and 2nd respondent .
45. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hazi Iqbal @ Bala through SPOA vs. State of UP (Order dated 08.08.2023 in Crl.A.No.2345 of 2023 of the Apex Court.) and the same are as follows:-
"15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
16. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:-
“5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p.869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..” (Emphasis supplied)
46. In the light of the aforesaid findings of the Apex Court, coming to the facts of case on hand, as discussed supra, the contents of the complaint dated 01.12.2024 lodged with the P.S.Panjagutta lacks ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. This Court scrutinized the entire material including the representation dated 19.06.2024 of the petitioner submitted to DGP, his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.243 of 2024 and the affidavit filed in W.P.No.19502 of 2024. This Court of the view that the contents of the same lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. There is improved version in the complaint dated 01.12.2024 by the 2nd respondent.
47. It is apt to note Apex Court in Bhajanlal supra, laid down the aforesaid parameters to quash the proceedings by High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
48. In the light of the same and discussion supra, continuation of the proceedings in Cr.No.1205 of 2024 against the petitioner herein/A.2 is an abuse of process of law and the same cannot go on.
49. Therefore, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in Cr.No.1205 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S.Panjagutta, against the petitioner herein/A.2 alone, are quashed.
50. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
