Telangana High Court
Nethi Vidyasagar vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11372 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard Smt. Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel representing
Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.
Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwara
Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State. Despite service of
notice, there is no representation on behalf of 2nd respondent.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to quash the
cognizance order dated 06.04.2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 504 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r ) (s) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment
Act, 2015) (for short, the SC&ST Act’) and issuing summons to the
petitioner herein/accused in SC.SPL.No.51 of 2024 by the Special
Sessions Court for SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989, Nalgonda.
Facts of the case:-
3. On the complaint dated 01.11.2023, the Police, Nakrekal
Police Station, have registered a case in Cr.No.259 of 2023 against the
petitioner herein. In the said complaint, 2nd respondent stated that he
2
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
was working as a Member of Flying Squad Team (FST) team and he
was on election duty in Nakrekal. It came to his notice that on
01.11.2023, the petitioner, the Former Deputy Chairman of Telangana
Legislative Council, on 31.10.2023 at about 2.30 P.M., came to
Kattangoor village for the purpose of participating in election
campaign, gave speech on the road at Kattangoor centre. He abused
the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from
Nakrekal Assembly Constituency belongs to BRS party in abusive and
filthy language. The petitioner belongs to Kapu community.
Therefore, the petitioner insulted the sitting MLA of Nakrekal is a
Member of SC/ST community and therefore, he requested the Sub
Inspector of Police, Nakrekal Police Station, to take action against the
petitioner herein.
4. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police, Nakrekal, have
registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioner herein for the
aforesaid offences.
5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
has recorded statements of 2nd respondent as L.W.1, Palle vijay, eye
witness, who videographed speech of accused in his cell phone and
transferred the same in pen drive and handed over to L.W.1, Daida
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
Paramesham, Yathakula Kiran as L.Ws.3 and 4, the victim
Chirumarthi Lingaiah as L.W.5, Yellavula Venkateshwrlu who
photographed and videographed entire statements of witnesses, as
L.W.6, Palasa Saidulu and Gandamalla Ramaswamy, the panch
witness to seizure of pen drive as L.Ws.7 and 8, Janapati Venkatesh
and Chougoni Shankaraiah, the panch witnesses to the scene of
offence panchanama and rough sketch, as L.Ws.9 and 10, Tahsildar,
Narkatpally, who issued caste certificate of the victim as L.W.11 and
Tahsildar, Nakrekal, who issued caste certificate of the
petitioner/accused, as L.W.12. L.W.13 is the Investigating Officer
who registered the crime and L.W.14 is also an Investigating Officer.
On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating Officer laid
charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences.
6. Vide docket order, dated 06.04.2024, learned Special
Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases -cum-II
Additional District and Sessions Court at Nalgonda, took cognizance
of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. Challenging the
same, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition.
7. Smt. Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner
would contend that the contents of the said complaint lack the
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein.
There is delay of one day in lodging the complaint. Victim was
examined on 06.11.2023 i.e. after seven days of the alleged incident
and after six days of registration of the said crime. The 2nd respondent
is neither victim nor an eye witness. On his complaint, the Police
cannot register the aforesaid case against the petitioner and without
considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge
sheet against the petitioner herein, learned Special Court took
cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. 2nd
respondent is not competent to lodge a complaint. Even 2nd respondent
has to submit the said complaint to the District Collector, District
Election Officer not to the police, Kattangoor Police Station. The
cognizance order dated 06.04.2024 is not on consideration of the
aforesaid aspects. With the said submissions, the petitioner sought to
quash the cognizance order.
8. Whereas, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing
Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor would contend
that though 2nd respondent is not a victim or an eye witness, basing on
the complaint of L.W.2, dated 01.11.2023, he has lodged a complaint
with police on 01.11.2023. He is an informant and therefore, the
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
present proceedings are maintainable. On consideration of the said
aspects only, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the
petitioner herein and on consideration of the said submissions, and the
material available on record, the trial court took cognizance of the
aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. There is no error in it.
The contentions of the petitioner herein are defence which he has to
take before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider.
9. As discussed supra, the 2nd respondent is neither a victim nor
a complainant. He has lodged a complaint dated 01.11.2023 on receipt
of the complaint from L.W.2.
10. Perusal of the said complaint dated 01.11.2023 of L.W.2
and his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would reveal
that the petitioner abused L.W.5, sitting MLA from Nakrekal
Assembly Constituency by referring his caste name and insulted him.
The same was on 31.10.2023 at about 1.30 a.m. at Kattangoor.
Therefore, he requested the 2nd respondent to take action against the
petitioner herein.
11. Even according to the 2nd respondent, the alleged incident
took place on 31.10.2023 at 1.30 A.M. and he has submitted the said
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
complaint only on 01.11.2023. There is delay of one day. There is no
explanation from L.W.2 with regard to the said delay.
12. It is also relevant to note that even L.W.2 is not a victim and
he has not stated that he was present on 31.10.2023 at the spot.
Therefore, he is not an eye witness or victim.
13. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the
Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of victim L.W.5 only
on 06.11.2023 i.e. after seven (7) days of the alleged incident and six
(6) days from registration of crime.
14. In his statement, L.W.5, the victim, stated that he came to
know about said abusive language used by the petitioner on
31.10.2023 during the election campaign on behalf of Congress party
candidate through his close associates.
15. According to him, L.W.2, L.W.3 are claiming that they are
doing vegetable and doing farm business. They have sent video
through mobile and in pen drive. Perusal of the statements of LWs. 3
and 4 also would reveal that they are not eye witnesses. They have not
stated that they were present at the spot. L.W.3 is a businessman and
according to him, he is running a diary farm and L.W.4 is running tent
house. They have also not stated that they were present at the spot
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
while the petitioner abusing the 2nd respondent. Without considering
the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the
petitioner herein.
16. As discussed supra, the offences alleged against the
petitioner herein are under Sections 504 IPC and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of
SC/ST Act and the same are extracted below:-
504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the
peace:
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to
any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such
provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit
any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.
Section 3(1) (r ) (s) of the SC/ST Act, deals with:-
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,-
r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
by caste name in any place within public view;
17. As per the complaint, petitioner abused L.W.5, Sitting MLA
from Nakrekal Constituency and even if the said allegations are
considered to be true, there is no likelihood of causing provocation to
L.W.5 to break public peace, to attract the offence under Section 504
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
of IPC. As discussed supra, L.W.1 is neither an eye witness nor
victim. He has lodged the aforesaid complaint basing on complaint of
L.W.2. The Investigating Officer did not send the alleged speech of
the petitioner to FSL and did not obtain FSL report. There is delay of
one day in lodging the complaint. Victim statement was recorded after
seven (07) days there are contradictions in the statements of the
aforesaid witnesses.
18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was MLC and
Deputy Chairman of Legislative Council at the relevant point of time
and L.W.5 was Sitting MLA from Nakrekal Assembly Constituency
and belongs to Ruling Party. There is political rivalry between them.
19. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he was
implicated in the present case crime due to political rivalry between
him and L.W.5.
20. As discussed supra, the 2nd respondent is not an eye witness
to the incident or victim. He has lodged the said complaint on
01.11.2023 on the complaint of L.W.2. Even L.W.2 is neither a victim
nor an eye witness. Other witnesses are also did not say that they were
present at the spot. Admittedly, there is delay of 24 hours in lodging
the complaint by L.W.1 the SHO of Nakrekal. Admittedly, the
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
statement of L.W.5/victim was recorded after seven days of the
alleged incident. There is no explanation from L.W.1 with regard to
the said delay. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating
Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. Thus, the
contents of complaint dated 01.11.2023 and statements of the
aforesaid witnesses lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences
alleged against the petitioner herein.
21. Vide docket order dated 06.04.2024, learned Judge, took
cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein
stating that perusal of the charge sheet and other material on record,
found, prima facie case and having satisfied, taken cognizance for the
aforesaid offences against the petitioner and registered it as
SC.SPL.No.51 of 2024.
22. As discussed supra, neither L.W.2 nor L.W.1 are eye
witnesses or victims. Basing on the hearsay evidence, L.W.2 has
lodged a complaint with L.W.1 and basing on the said complaint,
L.W.1 lodged a complaint with the SHO of Nakrekal Police Station.
Therefore, they cannot be considered as informants. Without
considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge
sheet against the petitioner herein.
10
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
23. As discussed supra, there is one day delay in lodging the
subject complaint and there is no explanation offered by L.W.1.
24. With regard to the unexplained abnormal delay, the Apex
Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N. 1
22.There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial
investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse
of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to
sustain the claims in the complaint. As held by this Court in Bijoy
Singh v. State of Bihar [Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9
SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093] , inordinate delay, if not
reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The relevant extract from the judgment is extracted below : (SCC
p. 153, para 7)
“7. … Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the
prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse
inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would
require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version for
ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been
implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek
an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. It is
always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if
reasonable, plausible and sufficient explanation is tendered, no
adverse inference can be drawn against it.”
23. In the present case, the respondent has provided no explanation
for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the
1
(2022) 15 SCC 164
11
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
initial site inspection, the show-cause notice, and the complaint. In
fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to
infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal
proceedings.
24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing
of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate
delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very
crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
25. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to extract
paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hazi
Iqbal @ Bala through SPOA vs. State of UP 2 and the same are as
follows:-
15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important.
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the
Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then
he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments
made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just
enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the
2
Order dated 08.08.2023 in Crl.A.No.2345 of 2023 of the Apex Court.
12
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of
a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of
private or personal grudge as alleged.
16. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC
522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials
the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine
distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as
evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that
manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for
quashing an FIR. The Court held:-
“5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any
attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the
court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the
process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice
and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would
be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or
continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of
these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no
offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question
of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to
look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in
toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239,
this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power
can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p.869, para
6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the
institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
13
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint
taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal
evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the
distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is
evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case
where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not
support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry
whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all
relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process,
lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to
unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the
section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..” (Emphasis supplied)
26. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 3, the Apex Court has
also laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of power of
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted
herein:-
“(1) 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an3
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
14
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
With the said findings, relying on the parameters laid down in
Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court quashed the FIR against the
accused therein.
15
KL,J
Crl.P. No11372 of 2024
27. In the light of the same, continuation of the proceedings
against the petitioner herein is abuse of process of law. Therefore, the
impugned cognizance order dated 06.04.2024 is liable to be set aside.
28. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. The cognizance
order dated 06.04.2024 taking cognizance for the offences punishable
under Sections 504 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r ) (s) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(Amendment Act, 2015) and issuing summons to the petitioner
herein/accused in SC.SPL.No.51 of 2024 by the Special Sessions
Court for SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989, at Nalgonda, is set aside and
consequently the proceedings in SC.SPL.No.51 of 2024 pending on
the file of Special Sessions Court for SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989, at
Nalgonda are quashed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
Date:01 .04.2025.
Vvr
[ad_1]
Source link