[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 21 April, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2733 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section – 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to
quash the proceedings in Cr.No.205 of 2024 of P.S. Utnoor, Adilabad
District. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are
punishable under Sections 352, 353 (2), 356(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
3. Contents of the complaint, dated 03.10.2024 of 2nd
respondent, a Member of Indian National Congress Party, are that she
is having a very good rapport with the neighbouring Maharashtra
people. Since 30.09.2024, several people from Maharashtra have
enquired with her about a news which was widely circulated in print,
electronic and social media in which the Congress Party is accused of
siphoning Rs.25,000 Crore from Musi Project in Hyderabad and they
shared copies of the news published in the newspapers on 01.10.2024.
2
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
They stated with her that there are also video clips. On her enquiry,
she came to know that BRS Working President Mr. K. Taraka Rama
Rao, MLA, the petitioner herein, addressed a press conference at his
party office in Banjara Hills, visited an area called Kishanbagh in
Hyderabad on 30.09.2024 and made statements that the present Chief
Minister of Telangana with an intention to come to power, has given
so many assurances but keeping aside all the assurances, he has fallen
on Musi River. He further stated that to save his chair, the Chief
Minister, out of Rs 1,50,000 Crores project, planning to send an
amount of Rs 25.000 Crores to Delhi Congress. That is why they are
driving away. The liars are speaking in such a way as to disturb the
reputation and responsibility of the Congress Party and giving wrong
signal to the people of Telangana. The Chief Minister also speaking in
such a way that lowers the level of the Chief Minister.
4. The Police Utnoor, on preliminary enquiry, registered the
said complaint as a case in Cr.No.205 of 2024 against the petitioner
herein for the aforesaid offences.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
entire allegations made in the complaint are absolutely false and
fabricated for the purpose of foisting a false case against the
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
petitioner. The petitioner an is innocent. There is no intent of mens rea
on the part of the petitioner so as to attract the provisions of the
offences alleged against him. Even the allegation that the petitioner
made the Congress Party an accused of siphoning Rs.25,000 Crores
from Musi Project in Hyderabad, by itself does not amount to an act of
intentional insult, intending or knowing it to be likely that such words
would provoke the person insulted and that such provocation would
cause him to break the public peace or to commit any offence under
Section 352 of BNS. The complaint is silent on the suspect of who is
the person, who has been insulted and that such person would break
the public peace or commit any other offence. There is no rumour or
alarming news circulated by the petitioner. There is no intent to create
or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities
by making, publishing or circulating any statement or report
containing rumour or alarming news attributable to the petitioner and
that such rumour or alarming news has the propensity to create or
promote feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will. The entire allegations
in the complaint, even if it is taken on its face value and accepted in its
entirety, no case is made out against the petitioners for the offences
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
alleged against him. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in FIR
is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The petitioner herein has
also made false and baseless allegation against the present Chief
Minister of Telangana without any evidence. Therefore, he sought to
quash the proceedings in Cr.No.205 of 2024 of P.S.Utnoor. He has
also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in
Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat 1, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs.
State of A.P. 2, K.Nagendra Babu @ Nagendra Rao vs. Yathipathi
Arun Kumar 3 and Ganguloth Jagan v. the State of Telangana 4
6. Learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State
would submit that during the course of investigation, statements of
L.Ws. 1 to 5 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and collected
videos in the pen drive. As per the statements of witnesses and
evidence collected, Section 61(2), 353(1) (b), 356 (1), 171, 174, 175
of BNS were added on 18.10.2024 by filing memo. The complaint
discloses a cognizable offence as such FIR is registered and
investigation is under process. It is settled principle that the
investigation cannot be stayed at the threshold and to establish the
1
2025 LawSuit (SC) 427
2
(1997) 7 SCC 431
3
2017 LawSuit(HYd)
4
Crl.P.No.2894 of 2015
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
guilt of the accused, further investigation is very much necessary. As
the petitioner failed to make out a case and the case is still at initial
stage of investigation, he sought to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that
the present petition is filed with misrepresentation of facts. The
petitioner in order to curtail investigation sought to quash the
proceedings on misconceived and irrelevant grounds. The acts of the
petitioner mentioned in the complaint attracts the provisions of the
offences alleged. The petitioner has been spreading false information
about the State Government with an intent to defame the government
and to disturb public tranquility. The acts of the petitioner constitute
offences alleged against him. The contention of the petitioner that
there is no intent of mens rea on the part of the petitioner is
misconceived. The petitioner who is in a responsible position and also
being at the helm of the affairs of the BRS party with a clear intent
and conspiracy to defame the Congress party and also with a larger
conspiracy to provoke breach of peace has made such statements. The
contents of the complaint are matter of facts which can only be
adjudicated during the course of trial. The petitioner is trying to scuttle
the investigation at the preliminary stage by way of filing this criminal
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
petition. He has also placed reliance on the judgment in State of
Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani 5 reiterating power of the
High Court under Section 482 of CrPC, to be exercised sparingly.
Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.
8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to refer
Sections 352, 353(2) and 356(2) of BNS and the same are extracted
hereunder:
Section 352:- Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace-Whoever intentionally insults in any
manner, 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 353: Statements conducing to public mischief.–
(2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or
report containing false information, rumour or alarming news,
including through electronic means, with intent to create or
promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds
of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall5
(2017) 2 SCC 779
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 356-Defamation:-(2) Whoever defames another
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both, or with community service.
9. As per Section 352 of BNS, there should be an intentional
insult and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or
knowing it is to be likely that such provocation will cause him to
break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be
punishable.
10. As per Section 353(2) BNS, whoever makes, publishes or
circulates any statement or report containing false information,
rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with
intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity,
hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both.
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
11. Section 352 of BNS is akin to Section 504 of IPC,
Similarly, Section 353 is to Section 505 of IPC and Section 356 is to
Section 500 of IPC.
12. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (supra), the Apex Court at
paragraph Nos.12 and 24 held as under:-
“12…. The words “whoever makes, publishes or
circulates used in the setting of Section 505 (2) cannot be
interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to each
other. If it is construed disjunctively, anyone who makes a
statement falling within the meaning of Section 505 would,
without publication or circulation, be liable to conviction….”
“24. Before parting with this judgment, we wish to
observe that the manner in which convictions have been
recorded for offences under Sections 153-A, 124-A and 505
(2), has exhibited a very casual approach of the trial court.
alone the absence of any evidence which may attract the
provisions of the sections, as already observed, even the
charges framed against the appellant for these offences did
not contain the essential ingredients of the offences under the
three sections. The appellant strictly speaking should not have
been put to trial for those offences. A mechanical order
convicting a citizen for offences of such serious nature like
sedition and promoting enmity and hatred etc. does harm to
the cause. It is expected that the graver the offence, greater
should be the care taken so that the liberty of a citizen is not
lightly interfered with.”
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court, while dealing with similar
circumstances, held that the main ingredients of Section 505 (2) I.P.C.
are provoking enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of
people. It was also held that mens rea is also equally necessary to
postulate the offence under Section 505 (2) I.P.C.
13. In the instant case, the allegation leveled against the
petitioner-accused is that he made allegations against Chief Minister
of the State. It is between two individuals. Though one of them is
Honorable Chief Minister of the State of Telangana, there is no
mention of above referred ingredients anywhere in the material
collected by the Investigating Officer. Further, from a plain reading of
the alleged statement made by the petitioner-accused, it cannot be
held that those statement, in any case, would create rumors, promote
enmity, hatred or ill-will between two classes of persons or between
different religions, race, language or regional groups or castes or
communities. Viewed from any angle, the alleged statement made by
the petitioner-accused would not fulfill the requirements under
Section 353 (2) of BNS. Furthermore, there is no mens rea creating
or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of
people. The petitioner-accused is facing prosecution for the offences
10
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
punishable under Sections 352 and 353(2) of BNS. The Investigating
Officer did not classify whether the offence alleged against the
petitioner-accused falls under Section 353(2) BNS or not. Even the
allegations made in the FIR and the statements recorded by the police,
in question provoked enmity, hatred or ill-will between different class
of people etc.
14. Initially, the FIR was registered for the offences under
Sections 352, 353(2) and 356 (2) of BNS. During the course of
investigation, basing on the statements of witnesses, the Investigating
Officer added Sections 61(2), 353(1) (b), 356 (1), 171, 174, 175 of
BNS by filing memo dated 18.10.2024 which are relevant and
extracted below:-
61. Criminal conspiracy.–(1) When two or more persons agree with the
common object to do, or cause to be done–
(b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy:
353. Statements conducing to public mischief.–
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false
information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means–
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the
public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced
to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility;
356. Defamation.–(1) Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be
read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any
manner, any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or
11
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
to defame that person.
171. Undue influence at elections.–(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or
attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the
offence of undue influence at an election.
174. Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.–
Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an
election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.
175. False statement in connection with an election.–Whoever with intent
to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement
purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either
knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the
personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine.
15. As discussed supra, the contents of the FIR as well as the
statements of witnesses lacks the ingredients of the offences
punishable under Sections 352, 353(2) and 356(2) of BNS. Even
perusal of the contents of the FIR lacks the ingredients of the added
Sections 61(2), 353(1) (b), 356 (1), 171, 174, 175 of BNS.
16. In view of the observations and findings recorded above,
the proceedings in Cr.No.205 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S.
Utnoor, against the petitioner-accused are liable to be quashed.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Cr.No.205 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Utnoor,
Adilabad District, against the petitioner herein are quashed.
12
KL,J
Crl.P. No.2733 of 2025
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
criminal petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Date:21.04.2025
vvr
[ad_2]
Source link