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.11312 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 28.03.2024 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.46 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, Kattangoor
Police Station, have registered a case in Cr.No.185 of 2023 against the
petitioner herein. In the said complaint, 2nd respondent stated that he
2
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
was working as a Member of Flying Squad Team (FST) team and he
was on election duty in Kattangoor. 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 1.30 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, a
Member of SC/ST community and therefore, he requested the Sub
Inspector of Police, Kattangoor Police Station, to take action against
the petitioner herein.
4. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police, Kattangoor 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, Sri Vutukuru
Edukondalu, who has submitted a complaint to the 2nd respondent on
01.11.2023, eye witness, as L.W.2, Puligilla Venkanna, who
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
videographed speech of accused in his cell phone, transferred the
same into pen drive and handed over to L.W.1, Katikam Srini, Mooda
Sushma, Pogula Anjaiah, Mainam Deender, as L.Ws.4 to 7, the
victim as L.W.8, a police personnel, the circumstantial witness as
L.W.9, who photographed and videographed the entire statements of
witnesses, the panch witnesses to the seizure of pen drive as L.W.10
and 11, panch witnesses for the scene of offence, rough sketch as
L.ws.12 and 13 and Tahsildar, Narkatpally, who issued caste
certificate to the victim as L.W.14 and Tahsildar, Nakrekal, who
issued caste certificate of the petitioner/accused, as L.W.15. 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 28.03.2024, 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
ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein.
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
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 28.03.2024 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 had lodged a complaint
with police on 01.11.2023. He is an informant and therefore, the
present proceedings are maintainable. On consideration of the said
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
aspects and statements of the aforesaid witnesses and material, the
Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein
and 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 defences which he has to take before the trial
Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same.
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.8, 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
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.
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
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.8 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.8 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 President and General
Secretary of Mandal BRS party. They have sent video through mobile
phone and also in pen drive. Perusal of the statements of LWs. 2 to 4
also would reveal that they are not eye witnesses. They have not stated
that they were present at the spot. L.W.4 is a businessman and
according to him, he is running a garment shop in the name and style
of ‘Srinivasa vastralayam’. He has also not stated that he was present
at the spot while the petitioner abusing the 2nd respondent. L.W.5 is
also claiming that she is also running a garment shop in the name and
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
style of ‘Sairam vastralayam’. Her statement is also in the line of
L.W.4. L.W.6 is claiming that he is a lorry driver and he was present
on 31.10.2023 near CPM office at tea stall and having tea. His
statement is contrary to the statement of L.W.2. L.W.7 is claiming that
he is a street vendor and doing fruit business on his mobile cart. His
statement is also contrary to the statement and other witnesses.
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 (POA) 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;
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
(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.8, 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.8 to break public peace, to attract the offence under Section 504
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.8 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.8.
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
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 Kattangoor. Admittedly, the
statement of L.W.8/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 28.03.2023, 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.46 of 2024.
10
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 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 Kattangoor Police Station.
Therefore, they cannot be considered as informants. Without
considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge
sheet against the petitioner herein.
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
1
(2022) 15 SCC 164
11
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
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
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
2
Order dated 08.08.2023 in Crl.A.No.2345 of 2023 of the Apex Court.
12
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
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
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
13
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024of 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;
(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)
14
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
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 an
investigation 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
3
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
15
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
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.
27. In the light of the same, continuation of the proceedings
against the petitioner herein is an abuse of process of law. Therefore,
the impugned cognizance order dated 28.04.2024 is liable to be set
aside.
28. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. The cognizance
order dated 28.03.2024 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.46 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.46 of 2024 pending on
16
KL,J
Crl.P. No11312 of 2024
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