The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 4g2 0t cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of.Grounds briril"]'p"tition, the High court mav be pleased to stav of all oroceedings "r th"'H"iition"rleccused in CC No. 3gb of "grinrt 2022 0n the fire of Honourabre-Sp.ii"il,iJ["iiii.t crass Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad for th9,9ff9nies ,ra"ii""ti."" U/S S99 GHMC Act, SEC. 50s(1) (c) rpc, 171(c) nnru.rzr6 rec, isJtal'"i'rpc pending disposar of the criminat petition in the interest of iirsticelnO-ei'uity]' a This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum ds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gummalla er Reddy ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf -of Groun Bhask of the ResPondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.788 of 2o.24 ORDER: Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G. Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No. I -State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.38O of 2022 pending on the Iile of Special Judicial FAst Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is sole accused in Crime No.16O of 2O2O. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 599 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short'GHMC Act), Section 505(1) (C), i71 (C) read with 171 (F) and 153 (A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 1PC') \ \! I '.1 Crlp.No.788 of 2 2

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the Police, Market, Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No-160 of 2O2O against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences. As per the said complaint, dated 26.1L.2O2O, the allegations made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein are that he was Assistant Executive Engineer/Flying Squad Team, Circle No.3O, Begumpet. He was deputed as Flying Squad Team Circle No.3O, Begumpet Circle for GHMC Elections-2O2O for the division No. 150 in addition to three other divisions. As per the instructions of Returning Officer of Monda Market division under Begumpet Ctcle-30, Secunderabad. On 23.11.2020 at about 11 A.M while he, along with Sri K. Ravipal, SI of Karkhana, Sri K. Shiva Rqi, PC 7970 of Begumpet PS, and Sri S. Sandeep Goud PC 5139 of Ramgopalpet PS were performing duty in Flying Squad in the Iimits of Market PS, meeting was held at SVIT Auditorium by BJP Party organized by Sri B. Shyamsunder Goud, where in Mr. Tejaswi Surya, Member of Parliament, Sri Kishan Reddy, Union Minister ald other BJP party president Sri Bandi Srt,.y (petitioner) and others attended the meeting. While \ addressing the media and party workers Sri Baldi Saljay KL,J Crlp.No.788 of2024 -) rntentionally incited to the communi$r by and promoting enmit5r between two groups and instigated the communit5r through his speech. Therefore, respondent No.2 requested pS Market to take action against the petitioner, who tried to promote enmit5r between classes, undue influence connection with GHMC elections. 1n

5. On receipt of the same, police have registered the case against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 6. During the course of investigation, Investigating OIIicer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as L.W:l, Sri K. Ravipal, Sub-Inspector of police, pS Karkhana, Sri K. Shiva Raj, Police Constable of pS Begumpet, Sri S. Sandeep Goud, Conistable of pS Ramgopalpet ald Sri C. La:nnan Rao in charage of SVIT as L.Ws.2 to 5 respectively, as eyewitnesses. L.Ws.6 and Z are panch witnesses for scene of offence palchanama ald rough sketch. L.W.g is tJle photographer, who recorded the said programme through video and he has issued Certificate under Section 658 of the Indian Evidence Act, L872. Sri Sheshaiah, Section Oflicer, Law(LA, LA&J_ Home-courts.B) Department, TS Secretariat, who issued G.o. .l Crlp.No.788 of 2 4 as L.W.9. L.W.IO is the Inspector of Police, PS Market, who issued FIR. L.W. 11 is the Investigating Ofhcer and L.W'12 is also another Investigating Offrcer, who laid charge sheet against the petitioner on completion of the investigation. In the complaint, dated 26.11.2020, respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner addressed the media and party workers, intentionally incited to the community by and promoLing enmit5r between two groups and instigated the communit5r through his speech. Therefore, petitioner tried to promote enmit5r between classes, undue influence in connection with GHMC Elections.

7. L.W.l in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. stated that the petitioner has started his speech referring Hindu-Muslim religions and tried to provoke two groups. Petitioner stated that there are two CMs in Telangana one is in Old City AIMIM CM and rest for Telangana other CM. In the same way if any one become a Mayor from MIM part5r, then our State has two flags, Two CMs and also you need saffron flag or green flag and trying to change whole Hyderabad as old city and then Hyderabad to change as pakistan. He further stated that after that also petitioner gave I KL,J Crfu.No.7EE of 2024 5 provoking speech against Muslims and Rohingras and Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, petitioner promoted enmit5r between two classes. The said facts are not there in the complaint of L.W. 1. Thus, there is improvement in the statement of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to that of the complaint.

8. L.W.2, Sub-Inspector of police, L.Ws.3 and, 4 are the Police Constables. They also stated in the very same lines as that of L.W. 1.

9. L.W.S is the incharge of SVIT. His statement also recorded under Section 161 of Cr.p.C. He has stated that he was present at the auditorium while the petitioner was giving speech and addressing the media. He stated that the petitioner gave speech against two religions i.e., Hindus and Muslims.

10. It is stated that L.W.g is the photographer, who recorded entire programme in media. But, investigating officer did not send the video to FSL and did not obtain FSl.report. i { Crlp.No.788 of 2\ 6

11. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of L.W.9, Section Officer, from the Department of Law, Telangana. There is no mention about the G.O. In the Charge sheet there is reference to G.O.Rt.No.34. L2. As discussed supra, there is delay of three (3) days in lodging ttre complaint. In the complaint, dated 26.11.2020 there is no explanation for the said delay by respondent No.2.

13. It is also relevant to note that as per the complaint dated 26.11.2020 the alleged incident is on 23.11.2020 at about 11.A.M hours. Respondent No.2 did not lodge the complaint on the same date. There is improved version in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C to that of complaint, dated 26.1 l.2O2O. L4. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.2 lodged complaint with police market on 26.11.2020 at 18.00 hours and on the said complaint, Police Market have registered a case in Crime No. 160 of 2O2O on the same day at 18.00 hours. The Investigating Offrcer recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 9 on the same day. a. ,: ': 'ia- ,t KL,J Crlp.No.76E of 2024 7

15. Without considering the aforesaid aspects, the lnvestigating Oflicer laid tl.e charge sheet against the petitioner herein.

16. Section 599 of GHMC Act deals with promoting enmity between classes in connection with an election. It states t,.at any person, who promotes enmitJr or hatred between different classes of people in connection with an election, or attempts to do so, can be punished. L7. Section 171 (F) of IpC deals with punishment for undue influence or personation at arr election and it says 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 witJr fine, or with both.

18. Section 153(A) of IpC deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

19. As discussed supra, the contents of the complaint, dated 26.1 l.2O2O ald contents of the statements of L.Ws. 1 to I 'i Crlp.No.788 of 2tr. 8 8 lack ingredients of the aforesaid offences' There is delay of three (3) days in lodging tJre complaint ald there is no explanation, much less plausible explanation from respondent No.2 with regard to the said delay' Though it is stated in the charge sheet that respondent No'8 recorded the entire speech in video, they have not sent the said video to FSL and the Investigating Off1cer did not obtain FSL report' 2C.. In Bhajan a"F, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly ald circumspection and that too in ttre rarest of rear cases' While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought' Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise o[ pou'ers under Sectior' - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the hrst information report or the complaint, even if they are taken 'at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not , ,, KL,J Crlp.No.788 of 2024 9 prima facie constitute arly offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the alegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police oflicers 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 sarne 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 oflicer 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 Crlp.No.788 of 20.,. l0 inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suffrcient proceeding against the ground for 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 proceedings andlor where there specific Provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing eflicacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party' (71 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 ' " The said principle was also reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. KL,J Crlp.No.788 of 2024 II 2L. In the right of the same, this court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.38O of 2022 pending on the frle of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections under Sections 599 of the GHMC Act, Sections 5OS(1) (C), Section tZL (C) read with 171(F) and 153(4.) of IPC is an abuse of process of law.

22. Therefore, the present Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in c.c.No. 3go of 2o22 pending on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cases, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections under Sections 599 of the GHMC Act, Section 505(1) (C), Section 171 (C) read with 171(F) and 153(A) of IpC are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending i" lhg Criminal Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/.MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUryREGISTRAR t: SECTION OFFICER I?:"?!f;:tl special Judicial First class Masistrate for Excise cases, To, t

2. The Station House Officer, police Station Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri. Gummalla Bhasker Reddy Advocate [OPUC] t L-':r:3;["rlt""t#it Prosecutor, state of relansana, Hish court Buirdinss,

5. Two CD Copies As/psr ? ;y HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/202s ORDER CRLP.No.788 ol 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION tS ALLOWED ( L 6 L) 6 k J o J '( HE s rh 15 2I JUL 2025 ..- ,/ * ^ .,^'.\