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 2024 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;
(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