The High Court · 2025

Mr. T.V.Ramana llao. Icantcrl counscl frrr rhc petitroners. ::#;.:lii,Ji'ilil;.-th" '"o'."''.l Mr. Ambedkar [)LL.tna, lean)cd counscl lbr the respondent No.2 \crdrrional Public Prosec.i,-' ,rpp(i,rins for rhe ORDER: The Cririnal pctition is for quashing of the re .ords related to FIR.No.590 ctt' 2024 on rhe filc ot p.S. Medipaill , Rachakonda, registered aglrirrst thc pctitioners pursuant to the c rmpl:rint madc by the responoent No.2 lor the alleged offences rrnder sections 505(2) of The Indian pcr-ral Code, 1g6O (,lpc) arrd ser rions 66C and 66D of The Inlirrmation Tcchnoloay- Act, 2OOO (1T Ar:i I. 2' The pe(ir.roner No. l /accused No. 1 is a [{r rnber of the Legislative Assr:rnblv ('MLA') fronr Sircilra Assembr-t .ronstituency, State of rerangerna and is the r'orking president ( r the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (tsRS) political p:rrty. The petitioner . io.2/accused No.2 is a Membt.r of thc Legislative Assembly from he Suryapet Assembly Consrit,rency, Statc of l.elangana. 3. The resporrcicnt No.2 comp : nant who contested for t ht Grad uatc is rhe de facto Mcntber o[ the Legisla rr.e Council ,5 r--l LIB,J CRLP.No.2732 of 2O25 ('MLC') trlections for Warangal-Nalgonda Khammam Constituency in [he e]ections hcld on 27 05 2024' The learned Public Prosecutor represents the respondent No 1/State of Telangara

4. The FIR statcs that the petitioners were indulging in a vicious, sczrndalous and malicious campaign by circuiating fake videos on social media platforms with the sole intention of damaging thc repu tation of the de facto cornpla\oant and to sway the electoral outcome in the ensuing MLC elections in the State of Telangana [n thc counter, the respondent No'l/State of Tclangana 5. states that the tnvcstigating Ofhcer issued a Notice dated 15.04.2025 under sections 91 and 160 of The Code of Criminal Proccdure. 1973 ('Cr.P.C ) Lo Lhe de facto complainant/re spondent No.2 for producing relevant evidence pertaining to the casc but that the rle Jacto complainarit neithei appeared before the lnvcstigating Officer nor submitted any explanation in response to thcNoticedated15.o4.2025'ThelnvestigatingC)fficerwashence constrained to issue another Notice under seclions 91 and 160 of the Cr.P.C. on 18.06.2025 giving three days lo the complainant for '-- -- -- --- R:.' 3 ! ltt ! !ll! 'a(l - , - 3 MB,J CI'LP.No.2ZS2 oJ 2O2S producing llrc relevant er,,iclcncc pertaining to th:. case which was also not act,:d upon by the cornplain:rnt. The :r:spondent No. 1 further stat(.s that thc investigation cannot t(. stayed at the threshold since further investigation is necessary-

6. In his :ounter, the responden L No.2 / de Ja., .lo complainant, states that the said respondcnt was not able t,r submit proper evidencc by rr:ason of his bus,v sr.hedult_ and thaL it is the dutv of the Investi€ialing Olficer to collecr thc evidenc, by pcrsonally visiting the cornplainant's olflce.

7. Learned counsel appearing lor the lt:,tltioners, the respondent No.2 / 51s /acto compl"rinant and the learned public Prosecutor have madr: ihcir respective submissir_ t1s and placed relevant mater.ial ancl case l2r\r, in supporl ol their at. lu ments

8. The allcllations in stated below: thc Complaint dated 21.O5.20,24 are (i) The de fr, cto complainan t/ rcspondcnt No.2 s ates that he was fielded by the Indizrn National Cot_ qress for contesting the MLC elcctions schecluled for 22.|5.2024 I ) ?l A 4 MB,J CRLP,No.2732 oJ 2O25 \ (ii) The opposition politic:rl parry BRS under thc leadership of its working President Mr.Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao and Mr.Ramesh Babu (Personal Assistant ol Mr.Jagadeeshu'ara Reddy, BRS MLA, Suryapet) is indulging in zr vicious, scandalous ald malicious campaign b-v circulating fake videos on socia-1 media platforms. (iii) with the sole rntcntion of damaging the de facto complainant's reputation, and (iv) to sn,ay the outcome of the ensuing MLC elections to Warangal Nalgondzr Khammam Constituency. (") The complainan t/ rcspondent No.2 urged the Station Housc Offir:e. Medipally Police Station to initiate requisite criminal action by invoking relevant provisions of the IPC against the three accused persons i.e., the petitioners herein atrd Mr.Ramesh Babu (Personal Assistant of the petitioner No.2). {EL& - 5 MB,J C.ILP.No.2732 ol 2025

9. First zrnd foremost, thc allegations in tht: r omplaint must be seen with reference to the sectiotls st.rted rn tht, FIR on which the offences :rrc alleged against the petitioners The provisions mentioned are section 505(2) of the tpc and secr ons 66C and 66D of the IT Act.

10. Section 505(2) of the IpC relatcs to stat(,rr€.nts creating or promoting er.mity, hatred or il[-u.ill betueen class rs. Scction 505(2) is set out bel,rw. "Sectton 5O5(2): Statements creat[ng or prorlt tttq enmlty, hatred or ilt u.till bettueen classes. Wht, .,er makes, publislt:s or ciranlates anu slcttement or rept)tt containing rumour )r alarming neus with intent Lo create t, promole, or uhich i:; likely to create or promote, on qrounti: of re,ligion, race, pkrce <>J bir1h, residence, lanquage, caste ., communitA or anll other grouncl u,hulsoeut,r, fr.:elirtqs of etttl t1. hatrecl or ill-uilL ,ietueen d lfferent religious, rctcral, k tlquege or regional groups or casfe.s or communities, sltr, t,t: punished tuith imp,Tls6npent u.thich matl extenci to three L1t. trs, or tuith fine, or t,ith both." 1 1. The above provision would sho\r, thlLr the following ingredients mrrst be'made out in order to attract I c:r.tion 505(2) of the IPC. Thesr: are:- (ql_That a person must make, publish or circu l rtr: any '":ET-5F 6 MB,J CRI'P.No.2732 of 2O25 -i (b) statement or report (c) containing rumours or alarming news with the intent to creatc or promote or u,hich is likely to create or promote (d) on grounds of rcligion, racc, place of birth, residence, language, castc or community or any other ground (e) which would promote lcclings of enmity, hatred or ill_ (f) betu,een different rcligious, racial, language regional groups ()r castes or (.ommunities.

12. The complaint per.se does not rlisclose any particula,rs which would satisfy the require ments/ ingredie nts of section 5O5(2) of the IPC, if the abovc ingredicnts ol section 505(2) the IpC are juxtaposed to the complaint. The only statement made in the complaint is that the peritioners and Mr.Ramesh Babu are 'indulging in uicious, scantlalous ttrul malicious campaign, against the de facto complainant br. circulatirrg fale vidcos on socia.l media platforms 'uith a sole intention Lo damage mA reputation and to su.ng electoral outcome of th.e ensuing MLC elections...". *- MB,J ct'LP.No.2z32 oJ ZOis tht: cont'rlain I except the The complainant has r rrt fu rnished any 'u lation of any

13. There is no other allegation above extracted portion particulars of publication of contcnt or cn statement/ reporl containing rumours/olarmirrr intent to creilte or promote feelings o[ enmity, between diffet.ent classes or communities on th(l race, place oI birth, residence, language, caste i. ary other ground for that matter. ncu s r,",ith the .r:rtrr:d or ill_will lines of religion, conrmu rr ity or

14. The de facto complainan t, if aggrieved rr the alleged malicious campaign made against him by the petil oners/accused persons, could have sought appropriate remedr ,r thc allcged offence of Defarnation under section 499 of Thc Incli rrr pcnal Codc, 1860. "Defamation, is dehned in Chapter XXI, st,<. ron 499 of the IPC as 'tuords.either spoken or intended to be r<,r tl. or b! .srgns or bg uisible representation s, makes u,: ru,ir,i,:;,r; ,rr,, ,:li,:::" conceming anA person rntencting tr.t ktrrt. or Knolutng ot hauing reoson to h"t;.,,- rt -, ^1,^) il h a rn. . h " ;. ; t ; ; ; ;' "; z,n"i,, ii.,J,l*, i ",,!, :: lhe cases h,,reinafter expected, to clefame ,hot";;;_.r,, u,,,, ",, !""o,,,,,1., '.,

15. Section 199 of the Cr.p.C. (,prosccution lbr_ contaitrs a bar cn Courts from taking cogltizancc ( l I I)elzrrnationJ 'an ofl'cnce l1 j \ -' 1 8 MB,J CRLP.No.2732 o! 2O2s - punishable under Chapter XXI of the IPC except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by tl're offcnce The relevant part of section 199 of thc Cr. P.C. is sel out below' "Section 199. Prosea ionJbr deJcimation- (1) No Coutl shalt take cogrtizance of an offence punishabLe under Chapter XXI of the Indlan Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a comp[ainl made by some person aggieued bY the offencr::

16. Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. dcfines "Complaint" as 'any allegation macle orallLl or m util[ng lo u Magistrate utith a uietu to tais taking octioru under the Cr'P C that some person has committed an oJfence but does not include a po li(E rePort (unde rlined fo r emP ha si s )'

17. A conjoint reading o[ the above scctions would mean that the police does not have juriscliction to cntertain a complaint for the offence of Defamation, as def-tncd under section 499 of the IPC' which is within the exclusive domain ol thc lvlagislrate'

18. In the present casc, the Complaint leacling to registration of the FIR was lodged by the respondent No 2 on 25 O5 2O24 before theStationHouseOff-rcer,MedipallyPS"Rachakonda'contraryto the provisions of the Cr.P'C Adrlitionally' thc complaint reveals ---:-G.:-' ,&- - 9 twB,J CRLP.No-2732 oJ: 2O2S tlrat the respondent No.2/de facto complainant is aggrieved bv the allcged actiols on the part of the petitioners . e. , in tending to damage tht: r:omplainant's reputation and to slvlr . ihc o1l t come of tht: ensuing MLC elections. Thc contents of the ,'omplaint u,ould show that section 5OS(2) of the IpC would not har.,, an),apptication to the compl:rint or the FIR subsequently regisr ,r,.d against thc petitiolters

19. The other sections mentioned in the FIR .r ere under The lnformation arrd Technolory Act, 2000. Section rrrr(. oI the IT Act relates to 'Punishment for identity theft, anr contcmplates fraudulent or rlishonest use of the electronic signi 1urc, pztssword or any other unique identihcation feature o[ any rl1l,er persr>n. It is evident that thcre is nothing in the complaint to :u tract scction 66C of rhe IT Act since the complaint does not evcr allege identity theft of the complainant by the petitioners.

20. Section 6t)D of the IT Act rclates to ,punishmc rt for cheating b-y personation by usihg computer resource,. The r trnplaint docs not contain an1 allegation whatsoever of the petitir ncrs cheating the de J'acto complainart by personation and thar. r,)o bv using F- 1() MB,J CRLP.No.2732 oJ 2025 -'i .l computer resource which forms thc sccond ingredient of the offence under section 66D oI the lT Act

21. Each of the offences mentioned in the FIR have individually been dealt with to test the legality of the F'lR lodgcd pursuant to the complaint. The conten ts/ allegation s in the complaint do not satisfy any of the provisions mentioned in the FtR. To repeat, the only allegation made in thc complaint is that the petitioners were circulating fake videos on social mcdia platforms r.,,'ith the sole intention to damage the reputation of the de fctcto complainart and to impact the electoral outcome of thc ensuing MLC election again st the de facto complainant .

22. This allegation, by itself, is vague and u,ithout nccessary particulars. The counter hlcd by thc rcspondent No. i u,ould also show that the de facto complaina n t / respondent No.2 has not submitted any evidence despite being served u,ith two consecutive Notices in April and June, 2O25. Thc allegation af 'circulating fake uideos on sociol media platforms' is too broad a stat( ment and is devoid of any particulars. I --:-.n'ffi.: * ( 11 MB,J CqLP.No.2732 oJ 2O2S 23. It is r;e t tled that the accused cannot br: r:ompelled to face trial when the contents of the FIR do not discl, rse commission o[ any offence ,:n the face of it. The test to be appirccl by thc Court is whether uncontroverted allegations, prima ft,.ie, est:rblish thc offence and whether the prosecution shoulcl be permitted to continue ilt the interest of justice. The Court r annot be utilized lor a, oblique purpose where the chance of an u trrnare conviction is bleak: Madhaura.o Jiwajirao Scind.ia \ ,.s. Sambhnjirao Chandrojirao Angrel. Vague allegations, even I taken as true, would not clisclose commission of any offence f rr making out a casc against _he petitioner. Asking the petitioner trl stand trial in the face of the vague allegations would be an abrrse of proccss of law,. Refusal to exercise the power to quash thc l,.lR ancl lurther proceedings based thercon, would result in misczr_rrage of justice: Kim Wansoo Vs. State of uttar prad_esht.

24. Kim Mrnsoo (supra) relicd on paragrap 1 l02 of the <:elebrated decision ol State of Haryana Vs. Bhojtu /,alj wtrere the Supreme Cout t laid down certain categories of r: r ses by rvay of r (19881 I SCC 692 , 2025 SCC On],ir,c SC I 7 3 1992 SLrpp (l) S(tC 335 ) L I -E-.'%---,. L2 MB'J CRLP.No.2732 oJ' 2O2S illustration for exercise of the pourer under section 482 ol Lhe Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process or to secure thc ends oljustice' The hrst and fifth categories would be relevant for the present case i.e., where the allegations made in thc FIR/Complaint pnnru facie do not constitute any offence and wherc the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of r'r'hich no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against lhe accu sed '

25. The petitioners have also relied on an order passed b1 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No 2733 of 2O25 wherein the learned Single Judgc found Lhat no offence had been made out under section 353(2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2O23 which is pari materia to section 505(2) of thc IPC' The criminal proceedings pending on the hle of P S Utnrtor' Adilabad District r.r'ere accordingly quashed.

26. State Vs. M.Maid-ossa, relicd upon by the rcspondent No.2/ complainant, involved facts that are substanlially different from those in the present case. The Supreme Court noted that the I"lR ' (20231 4 scc 338 - rtl,rill 13 cR.,p.No.2732 "Jff;! was lodged o,t 09.r2.2o27, a quash petition was i ed on thc ver.y ncxt da.y i.e., 10. l2.2o2l and the Madras High Cr urt quashed the criminal procecdings within a period o[ lour da1.s i.e., on 14.12.2021. 'lhe Supreme Court held that the Hii:tr Court therein had erred in rluashing the FIR without giving opportunity to the Invcstigating .\gency. The Supreme Court hov r:r,er relied on paragraph 13.3 of Neeharika Infrastructure (p) Lt ..t. Vs. State oJ. Maharashtra.. rvhich held that the Court will t ot pcrmit the tnvestlgation to go on where no cognizable offencr: is disclosed in the FIR. Compared to the dates in M, Maridoss (su; ra), the FIR in the prcsent cas(,rvas lodged on 2S.OS.2}24aad thr: lr.rash petitior_r was llled on 24.O2_2O2.5. Addirionally, the de /ac.r, , ca_r1..rr.rl, neith<:r appear<rrl belbre the Investigating Officer nor responded to the Notices desltrte being issued to LI.tc de factocompl tinant on t\ ro occasions i.e., li,.O4.202.5 and 1g.06.2025, Therefor t. M. Maridoss (suprir) does not assist thc case of the respon dent 1,o.2/rle facto complainant. . l2o2t) 19 tcc +o, n t4 cRw.No.2732 $#;lt 27 Om Prakash Yadau Vs. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay6 relied upon by the respondent No. I involved complctely different facts. The FIR in the Criminal Case alleged that the appellant's brother was killed and his brother's son was grievously injurcd by the accused persons by indiscriminate firing on l2.lO.2OO7. 'lhe appcllant claimed that the incident was witnessed by him and several others. The Allalabad High Court quashed thc proceedings in the Criminal Case essentially on the ground that the sanction to prosecute some of thc respondents (pubtic servants) under section 197 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was necessary and in the absence of which, the trial cannot proceed. The Supreme Court camc to a specific hnding that the extent of involvement of the respondent No. 1 in the alleged conspiracy to murder can be determined by the Trial Court upon further examination of the evidence and that the defence must be given an opportunitl to r-ebut thc same by leacling appropriate evidence. The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the order passed by rhe Allahabad tligh Court and allowed the appeals. t zo2a rrusc azg . -f-1,3 -,,!,r! l!:,G _=_ *rFl { l5 cR).P.No.2732 q#;t, 28. In a rcccnt clecision of a Co ordinat r Bench dated 16.06.2025 irr Criminal petition No.5756 of 2O2l , relicd upon by the responde,t No.l, the Court came to a prima. ?zcie satisfaction that [here ri'ere scrious allegations against the Ix riLioner and the investigation rvas still pending. Hcnce, lhe Court r t,lused to quash thr: proccedinr3s and dismissed thc Criminal petilrr>n. The prima .,ftzcie satisfactjon ol thr: Court ,,vas, inter alia, on l,re finding that the petitioner rrad not disputed making a ca to thc husrrand of the respondent Nc.2 lor extortion of money thus r.l.irr ranting further investigation ir the matter.

29. It is sel lccl that inherent powers should l,e exercised to quash proceedings u,hcre the allegations in the l.lR/Complaint takt:n at their race varrre do not constitute the ori,nce alleged or wherc the allegrrtions constitute an offence but thr: r trarges are not supported by clear evidence. There is no absolurr rulc that an investigation at a nasccnt stage cannot be quashccl by cxercise of power under scction 4g2 of the CRpC to prevenr abuse of the proccss of law u here no olfence is made out on the li, r:c ol. it. 30' Inherent lxrwer under section 4g2 of rhe crinr nar procedure Codc, 1973 can be exercised cither to prevent abusr o[ process or 16 DIB,J CRLP.No.2732 oli 2O2S to secure the ends of justice. The present case qualihes under both thesc yardsticks_ [n essence, no congnizable offcnce or offence of any kind is disclosed against the petitioners in the complaint/FIR for the Court to permit thc investigation ro continue against thc petitioners.

31. The above discussion persuades this Court to allow the Criminal Petition

32. Criminal Petition No.2732 of 2025 is accordingly allowed by quashing the proceedings in FIR.No.59O of 2024 pending on the hle of P.S. Medipaily, Rachakonda, registered against the pctitioners / accu sed Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences uncler sections 505(2) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 66C and 66D of Thc Information Technolog, Act, 2000.

33. All connected applications are disposed of. Interim orders if any arc vacated. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, .l L l.TheVAdditionalJudicialCivilJudge.cum-VMetropolitanMagistrateCourt Cyberabad at LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy D-istrict' Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. The Station House O'-fficer, Medipally Police Station, Rachakonda District' 5 r*o ccs to the public prosecutor, High court for the state of Tetangana at a. One CC to Mr. Tl/ Ramana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Mr. Ambedkar Dunna, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies Kam/gh \+ ---':] HIGH COURT DATED:0110812025 L ORDER CRLP.No.2732 ot 2025 . 10 sEP 2U5 \' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION lcod'tr y4- 5olf,-t' t