1. This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.470 of 2025 on the file of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 66 D of the Information Technology Act (for short ‘IT Act’).

2. Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a student and that allegation that he has created a video and circulated on YouTube is utterly false and that the pendency of this crime against the petitioner is spoiling his career. Even the ingredients of the complaint do not attract the offence under Section 66 D of the IT Act. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance with the work done by the de facto complainant, the petitioner has to settle the matter by getting work done through the de facto complainant but cannot post objectionable videos causing loss of reputation to the de facto complainant. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint point out that the de facto complainant along with his family members migrated to Shadnagar for livelihood and LW.2, who is the husband of the LW.1-de facto complainant used to undertake construction work of the houses in the surrounding areas on contract. As a part of their construction work, they have undertaken the construction work to a house in the land which belongs to one Mangali Venkatesh, who is the father of the petitioner herein. While the construction was in progress, LW.2 expressed that the labour charges got hiked and therefore he requested to pay excess amount for which the parents of the petitioner agreed and paid Rs.2,60,000/- to LW.2. But, even after completion of one year, the de facto complainant failed to hand over the constructed house and the walls in the house developed cracks. By keeping all these in mind, the petitioner herein, in order to defame LW.2 and his family has taken the photographs of the LW.2 and his family members and other labourers from Instagram and further has captured live movements and further created fake videos, uploaded them in YouTube by giving his voice over with an intention that no others would give contract to LW.2 and his family. Thus, FIR is registered for the offences under Sections 420 IPC and 66D of IT Act against the petitioner.

7. The said sections are extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience:

               Section 420 IPC:

               “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—

               Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

               Section 66D of IT Act:

               “66D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.–

               Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.”

8. The ingredients of the complaint do not attract the offence under Section 420 IPC. There is no dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioner and it is not the case of the de facto petitioner that he was made to deliver any property, therefore, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC does not attract at all.

9. As far as Section 66D of IT Act is concerned, it is not the case of the de facto complainant that the petitioner herein has impersonated him while creating the alleged video. Hence, even the offence under Section 66 D of IT Act does not get attracted according to the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, wherein it was held that:

               “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.”

10. Hence, in the light of the above cited decision and in view of e above held discussion, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.470 of 2025 on the file of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.