APHC010440502023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6566/2023 Between: 1. YEKKALADEVI SATYA NAGESWARA RAO @ SATISH,, S/O. LATE GANGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WO. D.NO. 43-7-16, RAILWAY NEW COLONY, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. 2. SMT M DURGA RANI, W/O. SESHAGIRI , AGED. 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 9-21-5, FLAT NO.401, MANTREES APARTMENT, CBN COMPOUND, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6566/2023 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.430 of 2016 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Section 509 of IPC and Section 66(A) of Information Technology Act. 2. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been lodged against the petitioner and no case is made out against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays for quashment of the case stating that there are no ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Section 509 of IPC against the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that the information which is furnished to the police clearly discloses the offence under Section 509 of IPC. The investigation also prima 3 facie, discloses the case against the petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that ingredients to attract the offence under Section 509 of IPC are clearly visible on record. He would further submit that after due investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 509 of IPC and Section 66(A) of Information Technology Act. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions, as can be seen from the contents of the complaint, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, prima facie case is made out against the accused and it is not a fit case for quashment. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.09.2025 UPS 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6566/2023 Dated.17.09.2025 UPS 103