APHC010307932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5009/2024 Between: Kancharla Krishna Prasad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. HARINADH NIDAMANURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused in C.C. No. 438 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. It is submitted that, based on the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, the police have registered Crime No. 271 of 2022 for the alleged offence under Section 506 of the IPC. 2 2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent is a reporter with Swathantra News Channel and the 2nd respondent reported the child rights abuse incident. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent called the petitioner and abused him over the phone for telecasting the alleged incident. The police have completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet. It is also submitted that, even as per the charge sheet, there is no mention of who called whom or on what number. The statements of the listed witnesses also do not indicate who called whom on the phone, and in the absence of these basic details, the complaint filed against the petitioner ought not to be proceeded with. It is further submitted that exposing the petitioner to trial in a case where the investigation was completed without any basis. 3. It is submitted that none of the witnesses speak about the mobile number over which the petitioner is said to have called the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that threatening over the phone cannot fall under the provisions of Section 506 of the IPC, and the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, in the matter of C.M. Ramesh vs. State of Telangana and another1. The learned Single Judge has held that a threat over a mobile phone, in the facts of that case, would not constitute an offence under Section 503 of the IPC, punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. The petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another in SLP (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2021, wherein 1 2022 (2) ALD (Crl.) 869 (TS) 3 it was held that the intention of causing a threat and damage was not prima facie established, and without any prima facie establishment of criminal intimidation, the offence under Section 503 of the IPC cannot be made out. 4. On the facts on hand, the charge sheet also does not disclose as to when the petitioner had called the 2nd respondent and from which mobile phone/landline number the petitioner had called the 2nd respondent, or on which number the alleged threat was made. Even the listed witnesses do not speak anything in that regard. 5. Considering the same and following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, C.C. No. 438 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Machilipatnam, Krishna District is hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 24.03.2025 PNS