1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 252 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Godavarikhani.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 arraigning for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354-D, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Heard Mr.Jella Naresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.02.2024 at about 6:30 PM, the accused allegedly followed the complainant (Respondent No. 2), proceeded to her residence, criminally trespassed into her house, and threatened her with dire consequences in connection with a proposed love affair and marriage. It is further alleged that the accused compelled the complainant to consent to marriage with petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 and issued threats in the event of her refusal. Based on the complaint, the police registered a crime, conducted an investigation, and subsequently filed a charge sheet. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute the ingredients of the alleged offences. It is specifically argued that the complaint is false, fabricated, and lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners. It is further submitted that no specific overt acts or incriminating material have been attributed to any of the petitioners. The petitioners also assert that the police have mechanically registered the FIR and filed the charge sheet without conducting a fair and proper investigation, thereby rendering the entire proceedings unsustainable in law. It is urged that continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, a prayer is made to quash the proceedings pending in the Calendar Case.

6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations contained in the police report and the conclusions arrived at after due investigation disclose a prima facie case for the alleged offences. It is contended that the submissions made by the petitioners are in the nature of a defence, which cannot be examined at this stage, particularly in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the matter involves triable issues requiring appreciation of evidence during trial, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. This Court has perused the material on record and carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals specific allegations against accused Nos. 1 and 2, including that they criminally trespassed into the complainant’s house, attempted to interfere with her proposed marriage, and subsequently approached the bridegroom’s family. It is further alleged that they displayed certain combined photographs of the complainant and accused No. 1 and threatened to circulate the same on social media platforms if the marriage was not called off. Additionally, the accused are stated to have contacted the complainant’s relatives through phone calls, directing them to view the photographs circulated in a WhatsApp group and extending threats of dire consequences in the event of refusal to marry accused No. 1. The charge sheet also records that, upon issuance of notices, the accused appeared before the police and are stated to have made voluntary confessional statements regarding the alleged acts.

9. It is a well-settled proposition of law that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law or where the allegations do not disclose any prima facie offence. The guiding principles governing the exercise of such jurisdiction have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein illustrative categories were enumerated to determine when quashing may be justified.

10. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, and upon consideration of the material collected during investigation, this Court finds that the charge sheet contains specific and direct allegations against the petitioners. The acts alleged, namely criminal trespass, interference with the complainant’s proposed marriage, intimidation through circulation of photographs, and threats extended to her and her relatives, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code. At this stage, these allegations cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant interference.

11. It is further well established that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, wherein it was held that if the allegations in the FIR or charge sheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court should ordinarily refrain from interfering with the investigation or trial.

12. In the present case, the contentions advanced by the petitioners pertain largely to disputed questions of fact and matters of defence, which can only be adjudicated upon during trial upon appreciation of evidence. The case does not fall within any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), so as to justify quashing at the threshold. Consequently, it cannot be said that the continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the absence of any merit in the petition, this Criminal Petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.