The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.2577 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, leamed counsel fcr the petitioner, Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri Y.Sri Raghava Rao, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.

2. The present Criminal Petition is hled under Section - 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for sh,:rl, 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.13464 of 2024 pend ng on the file of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The olfences alleged against the petitioner herein/sole accused are punishable under Sections 504 and 505(2) oflndian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short, 'IPC') .

3. On the complaint dated 29.03.2024 lodged by the 2nd respondent, the Police, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, registered a case in Cr.No.349 of 2024 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

4. As per the said complaint, dated 29.t")3.2024 of 2"d respondent, a Member of Indian National Congress Party, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are that on

27.03.2024 at BRS Party Office, Banjara Hills, Flyderabad, BRS \ J 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.2577 of2025 Working President and Sri Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao, the then MLA, made false statements against Sri A. Revanth Reddy, the Chief Minister of Telangana State that the Chief Minister has collected Rs.2500 Crores from the Contractors and Builders, sent the said amount to Delhi and thereby damaged the repdtation of the Chief Minister, Telangana State, and gave wrong signals to the people of Telangana. The petitioner also stated that the Chief Minister, after the completions of Lok Sabha elections, would join the Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP). Thus, the petitioner made faise and baseless allegations against the Chief Minister of Telangana without any evidence. The statements are in such a way as to damage the reputation of the Chief Minister and giving wrong signal to the people of Telangana. The petitioner spoke in such a way that lowers the level of the Chief Minister.

5. Basing on the said complaint, Police, Banj ara Hills have registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioner herein. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, (L.W.4) examined the complainant as L.W.1, Sri Thavuti Reddy Ravinder Reddy, Youth Congress District Leader, the circumstantial witness, as L.W.2 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion - 3 KL,J Crl.P No.2577 of2025 of investigation, he has laid charge sheet before the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderaba<[, and the same is taken on file vide C.C.No.13464 of 2024.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner would contend that the contents of the complaint, dated 29.03.2024 of 2nd r-espondent and the statements of L.Ws.l and 2 lack the ingredients; of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The Jretitioner is former Minister and present MLA, from Sircilla Assem bly Constituency. Therefore, tlie entire allegations made in the cornplaint are absolutely false and fabricated for the purpose of foisting a false case against the petitioner. The petitioner is an innocent. There is no intent or mens rea on the part of the petitioner so as to attract the provisions of the oflences alleged against him. Even the allegation that the petitioner made the Congress Party as accused of siphoning Rs.2500 Crores from the Contractor's and Builders, by itself does nc,t amount to an act of intentional insult, intending or knowing it to be likely that such words would provoke the person insulted and that such provocation would cause him to break the public peace or to commit any offence under Section 504 of IPC. The complaint is silen.: on the aspect of wil.o is the person, who has been insulted and that such person would \ \ \ ***.!-,*.r \ri:\";a.:; \ 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.2577 of2025 break the public peace or commit any other offence. There is no intent to create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities by making, publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news attributable to the petitioner and that such rumour or alarming news has the propensity to create or promote feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will. The entire allegations in the complaint, even if it is taken on its face value and accepted in its entirety, no case is made out against the petitioners for the offences alleged against him. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in the present CC is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, he sought to quash the proceedings in the present CC

7. Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor, and Sri Y.Sri Raghava Rao, leamed counsel appearing for 2nd respondent, on instructions, would submit that the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioner are triable aspects and the petitioner has to face trial to prove his innocence. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the petition.

8. Leamed counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that the acts of the petitioner mentioned in the complaint attracts the ':''4ry{xttt!t:=::f-.1,tt{.zi'.- trY 5 Crl.P No.2s?i of I#i provlsions of the aforesaid offences. The petitioner has been spreading false infomration about Sri A. Revanth Reddy, the Chief Minister of Telangana, with an intent to defame him and to disturb public tranquility and create law and order problem. The actrs of the petitioner constitute offences alleged against him. The co,ntention of the petitioner that there is no intent or mens rea on the part of the petitioner is misconceived The petitioner who is rn a responsible posltion and also being at the helm of the affairs of the, BRS party with a clear intent and conspiracy to defame Sri A.Revanth Reddy, thc Chief Minister of Telangana State, and also with a larger conspiracy to provoke breach of peace has made such statements. Therefore. he sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to refer Sections 504 and 505(2) and 499 oflpC and the same are extracted hereunder: Section 504:- Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace_Whoever intentionally insultr; 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 \ I 6 KL.J Crl.P. No.2i?? o1 2025 :,r,li{}i description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 505 (2): Statemcnts conducing to public mischief.- (2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statcment or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings ol enmity, hatred or ilt will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment rvhich may extend to three years, or with fine, or vvith both. Section 499-Defamation:- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

10. As per Section 504 of IPC, there should be an intentional insult and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it is to be likely that such provocation will cause him to I I I i l l I :ry 7 KL,J Crl P No 2577 of2025 break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be punishable I l. As per Section 505 (2) ofIpC, whoever nrakes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containihg mlse information, rulnour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to crerrte or promote, on grounds of leligion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or cornmunity or any other ground whatsoever, f-ee:lings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or lvith fine, or.with botlr.

12. In Bital Ahmed Kaloo (supra), the Apex Court at paragraph Nos. l2 and 24 held as under:_ " 12.... 'lhe words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates used in the setting of Section 505 (2) camot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplernentary to each other. Il it is construed disjunctively, anyone who makes a statement falling within the meaning of Section 505 would, without publication or circulation, be liable to conviction....,, "24. Before parting with this judgment, u,e wish to observe that the manner in which convictions trave bcen L /-_. 8 KL.J Crl.P. No 257? of2025 recorded for offences under Sections 153-A, 124-A and 505 (2), has exhibited a very casual approach of the trial court. alone the absence of any evidence which may attract the provisions of the sections, as already observed, even the charges lramed against the appellant lor these offences did not contain the essential ingredients of the offences under the three sections. The appellant strictly speaking should not have been put to trial for those offences. A mechanical order convicting a cilizen for offences of such serious nature like sedition and promoting enmity and hatred etc. does harm to the cause. It is expected that the gravcr the offence, greater should be the care taken so that the libcrty of a citizcn is not lightly interfered with." In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court, while dealing with similar circumstances, held that the main ingredients of Section 505 (2) I.P.C are provoking enmity, hatred or ill-will between diflerent classes of people. It was also held that mens rea is also equally necessary to postulate the offence under Section 505 (2) I.P.C.

13. In the instant case, the allegation leveled against the petitioner-accused is that he made statement that the Chief Minister of the State has collected Rs.2500 Crores from the Contractor and Builders and sending the same to Delhi. The same is nothing but information. It is between two individuals. From a plain reading of the alleged statements made by the petitioner-accused, it cannot be held L 9 KL,I Cd.P No.2577 of2025 that those slatements, in any case, would create rumors, prolnote enmity, hatred or ill-will between two classes of persons or between different religions, race, language or regional grorps or castes or communities. Viewed hom any angle, the alleged statement made by the pctitioncr-accused would not fulfill the recluirements under Section 505 (2) of IPC. Furthermore, there is no mclts rea creating or promoting enrnity, hatred or ill-will between diflerent classes of people. The petitioner-accused is facing prosecutiorL for the olTences punishable under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC. 'lhe Investigatir.rg Officer did not classily whether the offence all,:ged against the petitioner-accused falls under Section 505 (2) ofIP(l or not. Even the allegations nrade in the FIR and the statements recorded by the policc, there is mention with regard to provocation, enmity. hatred or ill-witt between diflerent class of people etc.

14. As discussed supra, the contents of the IrlR as well as the statements ol witnesses filed along with chargc sheet lack the ingredients ofthe offences punishable under Sections 504 and 505 (2) of IPC without considering the same, the Investigating Officer has Iaid charge sheelt against the petitioner and leamed Magistrate took cognizance o1' the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. \ I 10 KL,] Crl P No 2577 of2025 Therefore continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.13464 of 2024 on the file of leamed III Additional Chief Judicial magisrrate at Nampally, Hyderabad is an abuse of process of law.

15. In view of the observations and findings recorded above, the proceedings in C.C.No.l 3464 of 2024 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Judicial Magisrrate at Nampalty, Hyderabad, against tlre pet it ioner-accused are liable ro be quashed.

16. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.13464 of 2024 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrare at Nampaliy, Hyderabad, against the petitioner-accused are quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition_shall stand closed. SD/- B.CHANDRA PRAKASH EPUTY REGISTRAR II //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The lll Additional Chief Metropo litan Magistrate, H erab The Station House Officer, Banjarahi lls Police Station, Hyd erabad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad IOUTI iji6-bti" 5i T.V.Ramrn, Rao, Advocate to-P^qgl^. 6;; Ca io Sti v.stl Raghava Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies ad. To, 1 z J 4 W-z NVB -':-:aiE"lWEXEa\_ HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER 1 dF. Sr4 14- ()A e- o o 2 5 JUt'| ztfi o ( ? CRLP.No.2577 ot 2025 Dr : r t .l C: r,' -t:),, / ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION { 6 6