SS and the principle laid d,rwn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imran pratapgadhi v. State of Gu.ia ratr

Devireddy Sudheer Reddy' S/o D'Jayachandra Reddy' Aged about 62 years' occ: L.B.Nasa, Hltr-n nl1lil'ui"la-iiiztrnttn' venrliadri Nagar Asmansadh' Amberpet, Hyderabad - 5OO 036' 1. The State of Telangana' Through S'H'O'' L B'Naoar P'S ' Rachakonda' Rep' by its public pro.""ui'Ji'riigr, ci,rrt i"i tnb state-olf Telangana At Hyderab-ad' z. 3'nlis"nor' suiatna.' ivio'rioiino*n to p"t*:.'"ri:o3il'f"oJ'lr*I::B;;; ' ;;;;;i;; nvo.u uo'a-t-t5t35tF2o1' llnd Flot ilIJri' cor"nv noao'?armanshat' HYde.rabad .i33"%h"*to complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS.praying that in the circumstances F"tition' the High court mav stated in the Memorand'*";?;;';lt-oi-Ctiininur be oleased to quash tn" iri-rinat proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in r.t.ir.No.zs+ ot 2025,d";;''''ii]:ti-i;;;;; ih" rlle or L'B'Nagar Police station' Rachakonda I.A. No..20 F 2025 petition under Section 52g of.BNSS.pr"yrlg that in the circumstances stated i n th e Memo rand' #;i 6;';; ; of cri min'al Pel''i#,jl9rjt'?lr"T' f, if, I #';iJqg il g:'t 'Ji!".1":ili'[i%jl:"rT,:li"B 6b?;r;oi, tne^rire or Petitioner/Accused ln r'l' L.B.Nagar porice station,'il:;;k;J;,J"noing disposar of the main criminal Petition. This Petit'ron comins on for hearins' 'P"" 'P"lr"ri;3"1:;,yil"flftffJ erorni."it' diiri""r PetitLn and upon hearing T:,':'n*'J::;,; ii;","P;] Preeth, Advocate ior.-tt" 'i"tifro;";'";; irt9. rt'rl t-t'""fil;*3f:il[X? ti;?:c. ;X;ri;; V;;;;lr";rte for tne ResPondent No'2' The Court made the following: ORDER ; behalf of the ResPondent No 1 an' l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSIIMAN ALPETITION No.42l 60F 2025 ORDER: Heard \Ir. C. Hari preeth, learned counsel [or the petitioner _ accused, Mr. palle Nageswara Rao, learned public prosr:cutor for the state appearing on behalf of respondent No. I and Mr. cha lakani venkat Yadav, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 _ de factocomplainant. I

2. This Criminal petition is filed under Se<;tion - 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (forshort .BNSS,), the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.254 of .l.025of L.B. Nagar Police Station. to quash

3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid crime. The offences alleged against him are under Section _ 3 (2) (va),3 (1) (w) (ii) and 3 (r) of the Scheduled Casres and the S;chedrrled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section _ 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short .BNS,). 4' on the complaint of respondenr No.2, dated )7.03.2025, L.B. Nagar Police has registered the aforesaid crime against the pedtioner for the aforesaid offences 2 KIJ Crl.P. No.42l5 of2025

5. As Per the comPlaint, dated 17.03.2025 of respondentNo'2' the allegations levelled against the petitioner are as follows: i) On 17.03.2025, the petitioner herqin being sitting MLA of L.B. Nagar Assembly Constituency delivered abusive words against respondent No'2 before the Media stating that 'Honeymoon is running between him and Mr' Madhuyashki, Campaign Committee Chairman & L'B' Nagar tncharge", even after knowing that she belongs to Lambada Caste (ST) and thereby insulted her'modesty which hurts her feelings and her family members' iD He also degraded her among the people' insulted her and her familY members through media' iii) Earlier also, the petitioner insulted her in the name of her caste.

6. To qiash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime' the petrtroner frled the present petition on the fotlowing grounds: i) - He is sitting MLA of L'B' Nagar Assembly Constituency; iD Respondent No'2 is the present Corporator of tbe GHMC; / 3 KI.J Crl.P. No.42l6 of2025 iii) The petitioner belongs to BRS party, wher,::as respondent No.2 belongs to BJp. Thus, there is political rivalry between them; iv) Due to the said political rivalry, respondent Nrt.2 implicated the petitioner in the subject crime; v) On receipt of the complaint dated 17.03.202,;,the Station House officer' L.B. Nagar police statron, without conducting preliminary enquiry registerecl the subject crime. Therefore, the same is in violation of rhe procedure laid dowr under BNSS and the principle laid d,rwn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imran pratapgadhi v. State of Gu.ia ratr; vi) The allegations levelled against the petitic,ner are false and baseless; and vii) Punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offenr:es alleged against the petitioner is below seven (07) years. Therefore, the lnvestigating Officer has to frillow thr: pror.:edure laid down under Section _ 35 (3) of the BNSS. , - t. 2025 SCC Onlitre SC rii,8 4 ca-P- ul'+i]re orzozs on instructions' """:" Investigating 7 ' Whereas' learned Public Prosecutor' submit that investigation is pending in the subje" t"': Officer has recorded statements !! th'es (03) witnesses r'e'' respondent No'2 as LW'l' Mr' Vanguri Satish Yadav' Raj News Reporter, as LW'2 and Mr' Sala Sunil Kumar' R-TV Electronic Media Reporter, as LW'3' There are serious allegations against the petitioner herein' However' the lnvestigating Officer will conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under BNSS' I

8. Whereas' Mr' Chalakani Venkat Yadav' learned counsel for respondent No'2, would submit that that on l'7'03'2025' the petitioner had conducted press meet near DCP Office at L'B' Nagar in front of public and openly insulted respondent No'2' The petitioner insulted respondent No.2 in the above manner which hurts her feelings and her family members. He has degaded respondent No'2 among the people' Sheispresenteorporatorandpublicrepresentative.Th","fo.",scuttling the investigation at the threshold is not proper'

9. Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that though the petitioner flrled the Present petition to quash the proceedings in Crime No.254 of 2025 of L'B' Nagar police Station, the petitioner is restricting the relief to the extent of conducting the investigation raid down under Section -ion 35 (3) of the BNSS. 5 in rA^ ^,-r . in the subject cnme by fullow ing procedure "n.' *ffuorror,

10. Mr palle Ir insrrucfions, *"r,0 ,rojl,'"_":: :'" cnme, wiil fojrow the conducting investigation. learrr6d pubric prosecuror, that the Investigating offi':er in the subject procedure laid down --^v rqr(r uown under BNSS while

11. L,lr. ChalakaruVenkat yadav, Iearned counsel for respondent No'2' on instructions' would submit that there are severar facfuar aspects which the Iavestigating Officer has to consider during the r;ourse of investigation and scuttring the investigation at the trreshord is not proper.

12. In the Iight of the aforesaid submissions, it is re,levant to note that the punishments prescribed for the offences alreged against the petitioner are follows I t I I Offence Sec.3 (2) (va) 3(l)(w)(ii) 3G) Punishment prescribed Sim lei Not less than six (6) months but which may ()xtend to five 5 ars and with fine nment for three ears and with fine 3 79 of BNS Si -do- risonment for three 3 and 'with fine Therefore, the lnvestigating Offrcer has to conduct investigatior strict\ with the procedure laid down under the BNSS' Ile has to in accordance I I 6 KL,J CrLP. No.42l6 of 202J consider several allegations made by the petitioner in the Press Meet datedlT.03,2025.TheSamearecertainfactualaspects.The Investigating Officer has to obtain CD of the said Press Meet' send it for FSL and obtain FSL Report. He has to conduct investigation with regard to the allegation that respondent No'2 is a Member of Scheduled Tribe community and that the petitioner insulted her and her family members' I

13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion' this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Offrcer in Crime No'254 of 2025 ofL.B. Nagar Police Station, to conduct investigation dtrictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under BNSS' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed' .D sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// to'.,. CTION OFFICER an" ll Additional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior civil Judge at LB Nagar, Ranga ReddY District'

2. Thestation House o#t""'rJ.e.N"gar Potice Station, Rachakonda District. 3. Two CCs to the pruii" pro""",toi High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. ijit;-#6 trt. c. H"ti Preeth' Advocate IoPUC] ;. o;; ca i; M. chalakani venkat Yadav' Advocate toPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad' [OUTI HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER ,'. /a-' //d+ STATG 6E t':f/: l ri fi [ts u6 I I ? ,] CRLP.No.4216 ot 2025 i.. .. DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( A ( \-' / Lt