Telangana High Court
Sri Suryapaga Srikanth vs The State Of Telangana on 5 May, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
***
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9032 OF 2024
Between:
Suryapagae Srikanth and another.
......Petitioners/A-2 & A-3
VERSUS
State of Telangana, Represented by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through P.S.
Vanasthalipuram Rachakonda Comissionerate and
another.
Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 05.05.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.9032 OF 2024
% 05.05.2026
# Between:
Suryapagae Srikanth and another.
.
......Petitioner/Accused
VERSUS
State of Telangana, Represented by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through P.S.
Vanasthalipuram Rachakonda Comissionerate and
another.
....... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel
for the petitioners.
^Counsel for respondents : Mr. M.Vivekananda
Reddy, learned
Assistant Public
Prosecutor, appearing
for respondent No.1.
<GIST:
HEAD NOTE:
AIR 1952 SC 354
(2007) 7 SCC 502
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9032 OF 2024
DATE: 05.05.2026
Between :
Sri Suryapaga Srikanth and another.
... Petitioners
AND
The state of Telangana
Rep by P.P, High Court at Hyderabad Through P.S.
Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda Commissionerate and
another.
... Respondents.
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "the BNSS"), seeking quashment of the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 65 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 376(2), 307, 448, 4 365 of the IPC and 201 IPC, and under Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. Heard Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State. 4.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that accused No. 1, by misusing his official position, committed grave offences against the de facto complainant, including sexual assault and criminal intimidation. During the course of investigation, accused No. 1 was arrested on 10.07.2022, and certain material objects, including his clothes and service revolver, were seized. It is further alleged that the CCTV DVR from the apartment of accused No. 1, namely Padmavathi Nilayam Apartment, was found missing.
4.2. Subsequently, on 06.08.2022, the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 produced the said DVR before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram, and the same was seized. According to the prosecution, accused No. 1 instructed the petitioners, through a WhatsApp message, to remove the DVR from his apartment on 10.07.2022, pursuant to which they removed and retained it. On the basis of the alleged 5 confessional statement, the petitioners were implicated in the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.
4.3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 3. The case was initially taken on file as P.R.C. No. 65 of 2022, and was subsequently committed and numbered as S.C. No. 622 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that their implication in the present case for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC is wholly untenable, both on facts and in law. It is their specific case that the mere act of removing the CCTV DVR from the apartment of accused No. 1, even if assumed to be true, was done only on his instructions and does not, by itself, constitute an offence of causing disappearance of evidence.
5.2. The petitioners further submit that the CCTV footage contained in the said DVR is not incriminating against accused No. 1, and therefore, the essential ingredient of screening an offender from legal punishment is absent. It is also contended that the apartment, namely Padmavathi Nilayam, is not the 6 scene of offence, and as such, the question of destruction or concealment of evidence relating to the alleged crime does not arise.
5.3. The petitioners assert that there is no material whatsoever to show that they destroyed, altered, or caused the disappearance of any evidence, which is a sine qua non for attracting Section 201 of the IPC. On the contrary, the DVR was voluntarily produced before the police, and there is no allegation of tampering with or deletion of any data contained therein. 5.4. It is further submitted that their implication is based solely on an alleged confessional statement made before the police, which is inadmissible in evidence in view of the bar contained under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. According to the petitioners, Section 27 of the Evidence Act has no application to the facts of the case, as the DVR was produced prior to the recording of any alleged confession, rendering the same legally inadmissible.
5.5. In the absence of any independent or corroborative evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged offence, their prosecution is stated to be based purely on inadmissible material and conjectures. The petitioners, therefore, contend 7 that the continuation of criminal proceedings against them amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law, and accordingly seek quashment of the proceedings.
6.1. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the CCTV DVR constitutes a crucial piece of evidence connecting accused No. 1 with the offence, and that the same was removed by the petitioners, albeit on his directions. It is contended that such removal of evidence would amount to screening accused No. 1 from lawful prosecution. 6.2. It is further submitted that a prima facie case exists against the petitioners, and that the veracity of the material collected during the investigation can be examined only at the appropriate stage by the trial Court. Interference at this stage, therefore, would be improper, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have perused the material on record and carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.
8. Upon a careful perusal of the complaint, the statements of witnesses, the material collected during investigation, and the charge sheet, it is evident that the allegations are primarily 8 directed against accused No. 1, who is a police officer alleged to have abused his official position and committed serious offences, including sexual assault, criminal intimidation, and misuse of his service weapon.
9. The complaint of the de facto complainant, coupled with her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is consistent with regard to the occurrence dated 07.07.2022 and the specific role attributed to accused No. 1. Insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the material on record indicates that they were subordinate police personnel working under accused No. 1.
10. The allegation against the petitioners is limited to their alleged role in removing the CCTV DVR from the residence of accused No. 1 on 10.07.2022, purportedly at his instance, after the allegations against accused No. 1 had surfaced.
11. The statements of witnesses and the recitals in the charge sheet indicate that the accusation against the petitioners primarily rests upon their alleged confessional statements recorded during investigation, wherein they are stated to have admitted that they removed the DVR to prevent the police from tracking the movements of accused No. 1.
9
12. It is also an admitted position that the said DVR was subsequently produced before the police on 06.08.2022 and was seized under a panchanama. Significantly, there is no specific allegation of tampering with or destruction of the data contained therein.
13. On the basis of the above material, the prosecution seeks to implicate the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 201 of the IPC on the premise that removal of the DVR amounts to causing disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening accused No. 1 from legal punishment.
14. However, from the material available on record, it prima facie appears that the DVR was neither destroyed nor altered, but was ultimately recovered intact. There is no independent material, apart from the alleged confessional statements, to demonstrate that the petitioners made any attempt to destroy, conceal, or falsify evidence.
15. The evidentiary value of such alleged confessional statements made before the police is governed by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and their admissibility is subject to strict legal limitations. 10
16. Further, the investigation material reflects that substantial independent evidence, such as CCTV footage from other locations, call detail records, forensic reports, and witness statements has been collected by the prosecution to establish the movements and involvement of accused No. 1.
17. Thus, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the material on record primarily indicates their alleged assistance in removing the DVR at the instance of accused No. 1, followed by its subsequent production before the police, without any prima facie indication of destruction or tampering of evidence, which forms the core requirement of an offence under Section 201 IPC.
18. In this backdrop, this Court is required to examine whether the essential ingredients of Section 201 IPC are prima facie made out against the petitioners so as to justify the continuation of proceedings.
19. It is well settled that, to attract Section 201 IPC, the prosecution must establish: (i) the commission of an offence; (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the accused regarding such offence; and (iii) causing disappearance of 11 evidence or giving false information with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
20. In the present case, while the material on record discloses a strong prima facie case against accused No. 1 in respect of the substantive offences, the role attributed to accused Nos. 2 and 3 is confined to the alleged removal of the CCTV DVR from his residence. Importantly, the record indicates that the said DVR was subsequently produced before the police and seized under a panchanama, and there is no material to show that the data contained therein was either tampered with or destroyed.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354, held that mere knowledge of the commission of an offence, without proof of an act intended to screen the offender by causing disappearance of evidence, is insufficient to attract Section 201 IPC. Similarly, in Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502, it was reiterated that there must be clear and cogent evidence of destruction or concealment of evidence coupled with the requisite intention to screen the offender.
12
22. In the instant case, the act attributed to the petitioners is not destruction, but at best temporary removal of the DVR, which was subsequently voluntarily produced before the police. In the absence of any material indicating that such removal resulted in disappearance of evidence or obstruction of justice, the foundational requirements of Section 201 IPC appear to be lacking. Further, the prosecution case against the petitioners substantially rests on their alleged confessional statements made before the police. In this regard, Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act impose a complete bar on the admissibility of such confessions, except to the limited extent permissible under Section 27 of the Act, which applies only to the extent of discovery of a fact pursuant to such statement. In the present case, the DVR was produced prior to, or independent of, the alleged confessional statements, thereby rendering Section 27 of the Evidence Act inapplicable. Consequently, the reliance placed on such confessional statements, in the absence of independent corroboration, is legally untenable.
23. At the stage of considering a petition for quashment, the Court is guided by the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do 13 not disclose the commission of any offence or where the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
24. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the DVR, which is the subject matter of the allegation, was recovered intact; the implication of the petitioners is primarily based on inadmissible confessional statements without independent corroboration; and there is no prima facie material indicating destruction or disappearance of evidence by the petitioners. In such circumstances, the essential ingredients of Section 201 IPC are not made out. Continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would, therefore, not serve the ends of justice and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
25. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 in P.R.C. No. 65 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar, for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, .shall stand closed.
_______________
Date: 05.05.2026 N.TUKARAMJI, J
MRKR