Telangana High Court
Padi Kaushik Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 16 June, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5756 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri M. Vijayakanth, 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.252 of 2025 pending on the file of P.S. Subedari, Warangal District. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein/sole accused are punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(4) and 352 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS').
3. As per the said complaint, dated 29.03.2024, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are that on observing that the husband of the 2nd respondent was under fear, on her enquiry, he stated that the petitioner herein i.e. MLA of Huzurabad Assembly Constituency earlier threatened him and extorted an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs. He further stated that again on 18.4.2025, the petitioner called 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 from his phone No. 9949219999 to his phone No. 9959513366 and stated that if he wants to run granite quarry in the said constituency, he has to immediately pay the petitioner Rs. 50 Lakhs and threatened him that if he defaulted in paying the money, the petitioner would kill their family members. Out of fear, the petitioner being MLA, since her husband's health is deteriorating day by day and there being threat to their lives, the 2nd respondent requested the police to take action against the petitioner for abusing her husband in filthy language, and threatening with dire consequences.
4. Basing on the said complaint dated 21.04.2025 lodged by the 2nd respondent, the Police, Subedar Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.252 of 2024 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
5. Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime on the following grounds:-
i. There is delay of 3½ days from 18.04.2025 in lodging the complaint.
ii. According to the statement of 2nd respondent and victim, the 1st incident took place on 25.10.2023. Even then, they have not 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 lodged any complaint with police. Thus, there is delay of 1 ½ year in lodging the said complaint.
iii. As per the complaint dated 21.04.2025, 2nd respondent's husband is the victim and he has to lodge a complaint and instead of her husband, she lodged the complaint.
iv. The contents of the complaint dated 21.04.2025 and statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein.
v. To attract the offences under Section 308 of BNS, there should be three ingredients i.e. fear, inducement and delivery of property. In the present case, the same are lacking.
vi. 2nd respondent lodged the said complaint basing on hearsay evidence.
vii. The petitioner was implicated in the said crime falsely due to political rivalry.
viii. The petitioner is sitting MLA from BRS party which is conducting Silver Jubilee celebrations at the relevant point of time and the petitioner is actively participating in making success the said celebrations. To keep the petitioner away from the same, due to political rivalry at the instance of 2nd 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 respondent, the Police have implicated the petitioner in the said case falsely.
ix. There is no disturbance to the public peace.
x. Without conducting preliminary enquiry, the police have registered the said FIR which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.
xi. He has also placed reliance on the judgments in Mohammad Wajid vs. State of U.P. 1, Issac Isanga Musumba vs. State of Maharashtra2, Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat 3 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre 4
6. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime.
7. Whereas, both Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor and Sri M.Vijayakanth, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent opposed the present criminal petition on the following grounds:-
1
2023 SCC Online SC 951 2 (2014) 15 SCC 357 3 2025 Law Suit (SC) 427 4 (1998) 1 SCC 692 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 i. The petitioner called the husband of the 2nd respondent on 18.04.2025 at 1.00 P.M. and threatened him with dire consequences.
ii. The Investigating Officer, has collected call data in proof of the same. 2nd respondent has specifically mentioned the date, time and phone numbers etc. iii. The petitioner demanded him Rs.50 Lakhs, iv. There are specific allegations against the petitioner herein.
v. Investigation is still pending. vi. Husband of the 2nd respondent did not lodge complaint
immediately to the police due to fear. Ultimately observing mental condition of her husband, 2nd respondent has lodged the aforesaid complaint with police, who in turn registered the aforesaid crime.
vii. There are specific allegations against the petitioner and therefore, there is no need of conducting preliminary enquiry as contended by the petitioner.
viii. Investigation is pending. Scuttling the investigation at the threshold is impermissible.
6
KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 ix. They have placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Balaji Traders vs. State of UP 5.
8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the complaint and statements of L.Ws. 1 to 7 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein, it is relevant to extract the offences under Sections 308(2) and (4) and 352 of BNS alleged against the petitioner:-
Section 308 (2) of BNS: Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 308 (4) BNS: Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 352 of BNS: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of 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.
9. In Issac Isanga Musumba (supra), the Apex Court held that unless property is delivered to the accused pursuant to the threat, no 5 2025 INSC 806 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 offence of extortion is made out and FIR for offence under Section 384 of IPC cannot be registered by the police. In the present case, in the complaint dated 21.04.2025, 2nd respondent specifically alleged that the petitioner has extracted an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs from the husband of the 2nd respondent by threatening that if the husband of the petitioner wants to run the granite quarry peacefully, her husband has to pay the said amount to the petitioner herein. Thus, it is a matter of investigation. Prima facie, in the complaint dated 21.04.2025, there is an allegation that husband of the 2nd respondent has delivered Rs.25 Lakhs to the petitioner herein.
10. 2nd respondent, her husband, L.W.3-their driver, L.W.4 Close relative L.ws.5 to 7-friends of husband of 2nd respondent also confirmed the said fact. Thus, investigation is pending and it is for the Investigating Officer to consider the said aspect.
11. In Imran Pratapgadhi (supra), there is no mention with regard to the demand and that pursuant to the said demand any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainant. On examination of the said facts, Apex Court held that unless property is delivered to the accused pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and FIR for the offence under Section 384 IPC cannot be read out. The 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 Apex Court also held that under Section 173(3) of BNSS after conducting preliminary enquiry if the officer comes to conclusion that there is prima facie case to proceed, he immediately registers FIR and proceeds to investigate and if he is of the view that prima facie case is not made out to proceed, he would immediately inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under Section 173(4) of Cr.P.C.
12. Whereas in the present case, prima facie, there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has extracted an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs from the husband of the 2nd respondent by threatening him that if the husband of the 2nd respondent fails to pay the said amount, he has to face consequences in running granite quarry peacefully. Thus, prima facie, there is an allegation that there is delivery of an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs to the petitioner herein. The petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.50 Lakhs second time. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent due to fear, her husband did not lodge complaint against the petitioner herein at the first instance and also at the second instance. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. Upon consideration of the 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 same only, the Police, Subedari Police Station, have registered the subject crime for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein.
13. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (supra), the Apex Court held as follows:-
When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.
In Mohammad Wajid (supra), the Apex Court held as follows:-
".......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 10 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 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........"
14. It is relevant to note that in the said case, multiple FIRs were registered against the accused therein.
15. In a matter like this, scuttling investigation at the threshold is not warranted as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra 6, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High Courts 6 . AIR 2021 SC 1918 11 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the Constitution of India, which are as under:
"....
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities.
The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.12
KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the 13 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and
16. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh7, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
17. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 8, 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 7 . AIR 2021 SC 931 8 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 14 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 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 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." 15
KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 With the said findings, relying on the parameters laid down in Bhajanlal (supra), the Apex Court quashed the FIR against the accused therein.
18. The Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is not required to see which particular offence is made out, it has to see whether the gravamen of allegations disclose commission of an offence. In this regard, the following paragraphs of Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand 9 are relevant:
15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.
16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused.
As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out 9 (2024) 10 SCC 527 16 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation.
17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed.
18. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the court, the court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.
19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused.
19. In Balaji Traders (supra) placing reliance on the principle laid down by it in several other judgments including Bajanlal, Neeharika (supra), the Apex court had an occasion to 17 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 deal with the ingredients of extortion and held that putting a person in fear would make an accused guilty of an offence under Section 387 of IPC, it need not satisfy all the ingredients of extortion provided under Section 383 of IPC.
20. In the present case, admittedly, investigation is pending and it is for the Investigating Officer to consider the said aspects.
21. It is also relevant to note that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of 2nd respondent, her husband, their driver, close relatives and friends of her husband. All of them in one voice stated that the petitioner called husband of the 2nd respondent and demanded an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs earlier and collected the same threatening her husband that if he wants to run the granite quarry peacefully, he has to pay the said amount. On 18.04.2025, the petitioner informed husband of the 2nd respondent second time and demanded an amount of Rs.50 lakhs on the same pretext. The investigating Officer has obtained call data and filed along with the counter.
18
KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025
22. It is also apt to note that the petitioner is not disputing about making a call to the husband of the 2nd respondent. The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that his constituency people, including villagers of the 2nd respondent came to him and on their request, he has called husband of the 2nd respondent. Thus, he is admitting about making call to the husband of the 2nd respondent. Even call data filed by the Investigating Officer in the subject crime would reveal that the petitioner has made a call to the husband of the 2nd respondent and it is for about 40 seconds. Thus, it is for the Investigating Officer to consider the said aspect.
23. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are improvements in the statements of the witnesses including the 2nd respondent and her husband etc., it is for the Investigating Office to consider the same. This Court cannot conduct mini trial in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. This Court also cannot consider correctness/ 19 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 genuineness of the statements of the witnesses while dealing with an application under section 482 of CrPC.
24. It is also relevant to note that the Investigating Officer, on consideration of the statements of the witnesses and documents collected during the course of investigation, has power either to delete or add some provisions of law or accused and also file report stating that it is lack of evidence or civil in nature etc. Scuttling investigation at the threshold is impermissible as held by the Apex Court.
25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, prima facie there are serious allegations against the petitioner herein. Investigation is pending. Therefore, this is not a rarest of rare case to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.252 of 2025 pending on the file of P.S.Subedari, against the petitioner herein. Vide order dated 24.04.2025, considering the submission made by the petitioner that he is Sitting MLA and his party is conducting Silver Jubilee celebrations, scheduled on 27.04.2024, this Court directed the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioner but 20 KL,J Crl.P. No.5756 of 2025 investigation may go on and the petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer. The said celebrations were over.
26. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.252 of 2025 pending on the file of P.S. Subedari. Therefore, the present Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:16.06.2025 vvr