APHC010079092021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1288/2021 Between: 1. MODEPALLI SURENDRA, S/O SEENAIAH AGE.29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O PAGADALA PALLI VILLAGE, GUDURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST. 2. MODEPALLI SUDHAKAR, S/O SEENAIAH AGE.28 YEARS, OCC. PVT EMPLOYEE R/O PAGADALA PALLI VILLAGE, GUDURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SMT PUTTI VENKATA SUBBAMMA, W/O DHANAIAH AGE.45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O PAGADALA PALLI VILLAGE, GUDURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DIST ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court to quash the proceedings in CC.N0.699/2020 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore Dist., pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the 2 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in CC.N0.699/2020 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore Dist, including appearance of the petitioner, pending disposal of the quash petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. M M M SRINIVASA RAO 2. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1288 OF 2021 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.699 of 2020 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gudur for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 509, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟). 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: The allegations leveled against the petitioners are false and baseless. Petitioner No.2 was residing in Malaysia and came to India due to the COVID- 19 pandemic. The family members of the petitioners had been helping persons affected by the pandemic. Owing to local political rivalry, respondent No.2 allegedly objected to the petitioners extending such assistance to the villagers. The petitioners contend that they did not drive the car over the paddy on the date of the alleged incident. According to them, respondent No.2 threatened them with dire consequences, intending to deter them from helping the poor villagers. It is further contended that the complaint was lodged only to defame the petitioners and their family members. The petitioners assert that no specific allegations or material are available against them and that the proceedings are founded only on omnibus and concocted allegations. Hence, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 3. Heard Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. 4 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 4. Perused the petition, charge sheet and other material available on record. 5. Based on the report lodged by respondent No.2, Crime No.60 of 2020 was registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 509 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Code. Upon completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident occurred in the heat of passion and that the petitioners had no criminal intention. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2 died long ago, that mere use of filthy language is insufficient to attract the ingredients of Section 509 of the Code, and that there is no material warranting continuation of the proceedings. It is, therefore, contended that the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the record contains sufficient material against the petitioners and that the eyewitnesses have supported the prosecution case and the version of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the present proceedings cannot be converted into a mini-trial for determining whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are ultimately established. 7. According to the report, on 23.03.2020 at about 4:30 p.m., respondent No.2 had spread paddy for drying on the roadside near her house. Petitioner No.2 allegedly drove a car over the paddy, causing some of it to be crushed and some to become mixed with the soil. When respondent No.2 questioned the petitioners, they allegedly abused her, went into their house, brought deadly weapons, again abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. The incident was allegedly witnessed by independent persons. The statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as the statements of the other witnesses, substantially support these allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that 5 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 the incident occurred in the heat of passion and that the ingredients of Sections 506 and 509 of the Code are not attracted. 8. In order to attract Section 509 of the Code, the words or conduct alleged must disclose the requisite intention to insult the modesty of a woman. The expression “filthy language”, when considered in isolation and without any contextual details or accompanying words or gestures indicating such intention, may not by itself be sufficient to attract the provision. In the case relied upon by the petitioners in Madhushree Datta v. The State of Karnataka & Another1, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that particulars of the words used, the context in which they were uttered, and any accompanying gestures may assist in determining whether the requisite criminal intent is made out. The Court, on the facts of that case, found that the conduct alleged did not demonstrate the necessary intent or knowledge to constitute an insult to a woman‟s modesty. In that case, the complaint did not refer to any specific utterances. In the present case, however, the first report lodged by respondent No.2 alleges not merely the use of filthy language, but also that the petitioners brought deadly weapons from their house and threatened her. These allegations, read as a whole and at this stage, cannot be held to be wholly devoid of the context relevant to the alleged offence. Their truth and evidentiary value are matters for trial. 9. As regards Section 506 of the Code, criminal intimidation involves a threat of injury to the person, reputation or property of another, or to a person in whom that person is interested, made with the intent to cause alarm or to compel the person threatened to do an act which he or she is not legally bound to do, or to omit an act which he or she is legally entitled to do. In the present case, the allegation that the petitioners threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences, in the circumstances stated in the report and supported by the witness statements, requires consideration at trial. At the 1 2025 LiveLaw(SC) 108 6 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 stage of exercising inherent jurisdiction, this Court cannot determine the truth of those allegations by weighing the evidence. 10. On an overall consideration of the material placed by the prosecution, this Court finds that there is prima facie material warranting the petitioners‟ facing trial. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the incident occurred in the heat of passion, that there was no criminal intention, and that respondent No.2 lodged the report at the instance of political rivals to prevent the petitioners from extending assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic involve disputed questions of fact. Such contentions cannot be adjudicated in a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings and are matters to be considered during trial. As regards the submission that petitioner No.2 has died, learned counsel has not placed an authenticated copy of the death certificate on record. The petitioners are at liberty to produce the death certificate before the trial Court, which shall consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The proceedings may thereafter continue against petitioner No.1, subject to such orders. 11. It is well settled that, while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court ordinarily proceeds on the basis of the allegations in the complaint or FIR and the material accompanying it, without conducting an enquiry into the correctness or reliability of those allegations. However, where the allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence or disclose the commission of an offence by the accused, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The inherent power is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with circumspection. 12. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 2, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court illustrated the categories of cases in which the extraordinary power of quashing may be exercised. These include cases where the allegations in the 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 SUN, J Crl.P.No.1288 of 2021 FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused, and cases where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected in support thereof do not disclose the commission of any offence. The principles laid down therein continue to guide the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In the present case, for the reasons discussed above, the allegations and the material collected during investigation do disclose a prima facie case requiring adjudication at trial. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The petitioners‟ contentions on the merits are left open to be raised before the trial Court, in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Dt: 28.09.2026 Vns