The High Court · 2025

Order

2 KI,J Crl.P No.5823 o12025 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5823 oF 202s ORDER The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita (hereinafter 'BNSS') ro quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 312 of 2024 by setting aside the order dated 23.08.2024 in rhe said C.C. passed by Principal Special Judicial First-Class Magistrate for Excise Cases at Hyderabad (hereinafter 'Trial Court').

2. Heard, Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, leamed Counsel for the Petitioner - Accused, Mr. Devineni Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Hamsa Devineni, leamed Counsel for Respondent No.2 - Complainant and the leamed Public Prosecutor.

3. FACTUALBACKGROUND

3.1. The Petitioner herein is the Chief Minister for the State of Telangana and is a member of the Indian National Congress, a national political party. Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter'the Complainant') is the Bharatiya Janata Party (Telangana) represented by its General Secretary Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu. It claims to be the State Unit of the Bharativ a lanata Party, also a national political party. 3 KL,J Crl.P No.5823 o[2025

1.2. Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint dated 10.05.2024 under Sections t 99 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinalter 'CrPC' against the Petitioncr alleging that the Petitioner delivered an 'illegal. falsc, delarnatory and provocative' speech against Respondent No.2 on

04.05.2024

3.3. The following excerpts of the speech, according to the Complainant, are defamator.r and promotes enmity: 'BJP government will abolish all SC, ST and BC reservations' '[ have been saying, if we give,100 seats to BIP, they will change the constitution, they will abolish reservations, that's why they are asking for 400 seatst 'there is a conspiracy to cancel SC, ST, BC reservations for Dalits, tribals and weaker seclions' 'BJP is planning to change the constitution, your constitution is going to be abolished' 'the reservations you are being given are going to be cancelled' 'if you vote for BJP today, our reservations are going to be abolished' 'BJP national general secretary, a person called Dushyant Kumar Guatham said in an interview yesterday that as soon as BJP forms government, 4 KI,..I Crl.P. No.5823 of 2025 we will change the preamble in the constitution, we will change the constitution' 'what I have been saying from so many days, the allegations I made, your BJP national general secretary, Dushyant Kumar Guatham, has said clearly and in his official capacity, that as soon as BJP forms government, we will change the constitution' 'I am asking the highly learned Kishan Reddy, your general secretary is saying that we will change the constitution right...' 'now you decide if you should be beaten for telling lies or your getreral secretary should tre beaten for saying we will change the constitution'

3.4. Relying on the above alleged speech, the Complainant contends that, the Petitioner connived with the Telangana Congress Party 'to develop a lake and dubious political narrative'that the BJP will end reservations. These remarks, according to the Complainant, are defamatory and promote enmity betv.veen communities. Further, it was alleged that, the Petitioner's spcech was watched and shared online by innumerable people. According to the complainant, the contents of the speech were widely rcported in print, electronic, and social media. The alleged defamatory and divisive speech, according to the Complainant, lowered the reputation of the BJP as a political party. The complainant sought 5 \ KI,,J Crl.P, No.582i of2025 registration of a criminar case against the petitioner rbr the offenccs punishable under Sections l2OA, 124A, 153, 153A, 1538, 171C, 171G. 499, 50_5, and 511 of the Indian penal Code (,hereinafter ,the IpC,) an.i Section [25 of the Representation of peoples Act, l95l (hereinafter .the tu)Act, 195 l').

3.5

3.6

Pursuant to the said complaint, the Complainant was examined through its State Ceneral Secretary Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu on two dates yri.. 05.07.2024 antl |t.12.2024. It has also examined Mr. Akkaladevi Ajay Kumar on 05.07 _2024 as a witness. On consideration of the contents of the said complaint and statements ol witnesses, t'ide dockct order dated 21.0g.2024 in C.C. No.3 12 of 2(.D4 the reamed ,rial court ordered notice to the petitioner - Accused hording that a prima Jitcie case was made out against the petitioner for the off-ences under Section 499 of the IpC and Section 125 of the Rp Act. 195l Thc leamed rrial court arso directed its ofllce to register the case AS C.C

3.7 Challenging rhe impugned order dated 23.0g.2024 and the entire criminal proccedings in C.C. No. 312 of 2024, the petitioner has filed rhe present quash petition 6 KL.J Crl.P No.5823 of2025

4. CONTENTIONS OFTHE PETITIONER

4.1 . The allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case under Section 499 ofthe IPC and Section 125 of the RP Act, 195 I -+.2. Political speeches cannot be made a subject matter of defamation. A political party cannot claim to be entitled to reputation in terms of Section 499 of the IPC. In democracy, elections fundamentally involve parties seeking to lower the reputation of other parties. Therefore, bringing politica[ speeches under the purview of criminal defamation would destroy democracy.

4.3. The alleged speech amounts to a routine activity of a political leadeq i.e., to criticize the opposition political party. The same cannof be termed as defamation

1.4 Any imputation during elections that the opposition party's coming to power will jeopardize voters' interests is part of a political speech. 1he same is protected under Articles 19 and 2l of the Constitution of lndia. Reliance is placed on Manoj Narula v. Union of Indial and Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India2. '. luor+.yc scc t . (2006) 7 SCC I \ 7 KL,J Crl.P No.5823 of2025

4.5 The alleged defamatory speech against a political rival is not a factual statement rvith a determinable truth value. The same is a narrative to criticize the opposition. Therefore, such vague and general political speeches cannot be termed defamatory. Reliance is placed on Manoj j Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia.

4.6. The alleged defamatory speech is covered by first, second, third, sixth' eighth, ninth, and tenth exceptions to Section 499 of the IPC. Whether such exceptions cover the alteged defamatory statements can be considered in a quash petition. In this regard, the Petitioner relies on Aroon Purie v. State of NCT of Delhia.

4.7. Admittedty, the Complainant has stated that multiple complaints have already been lodged in relation to the alleged speech. Given such multiple proceedings, the 'liial Court ought not have taken cognizance.

4.8. None of the witnesscs have stated as to how the alleged speech was defamatory and as to how the Complainant's reputation was lowered

4.9. Ingredients of Section 125 of the RP Act, 1951 are lacking. The same only comes into ptay wherc enmity is promoted on the ground of 'religion, racc, caste. community, or language'. The Complainant's main '. (2023) l5 scc 40l '. (zozl) ts scc ++: 8 KL,J Crl.P No.S823 of2025 allegation was that a fake political narrative was being created. The complaint does not establish any enmity or hatred caused.

4.10. The complaint is filed with a motive to harass, and with a political vendetta. 'l'he same constitutes abuse of process of law. Therefore, it deserves to be quashed. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy6, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial MagistrateT.

4.1l. The impugned order dated 23.08.2024 fails to record any reasons as to how a prima facie case is made out. No reasons were assigned except stating that on perusal of statements of PWs.1 ar,d 2, a prima facie case was made out.

4.12. The complaint has been filed by Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu without any authorization lrom the Complainant. No such authorization or document has been filed to show that Mr. Kasam .Venkateshwarlu could have represented the Complainant.

4.13. Respondent No.2 - Complainant i.e., Bharatiya Janatha Party (Telangana) is not an existing entity and there is no party by name Bharatiya Janatha 1992 Supp ( l) SCC 335 (.re77\ 2 SCC 69e ( r998) 5 SCC 749 \ 9 \ KI,,J Crl.P No.5823 of 202i Parfy (Telangana). Without considering the said fact, leamed trial Court passed order 22.08.2024, issued notice to the petitioner - Accused.

4.14. No substantial proof has been filed to shou, that the complainant actually lost votes in the State of 1'elangana due to the alleged speech made by the Petitioner.

4.15. Any complaint or allegation under the Rp Act, 1951, has to be made before the Election Commission of India, which is the appropriate authority. The complainant cannot invoke the provisions of the code oi' criminal Procedure and cannor file a complaint under Section - 200 of the CrPC

5. CONTENTIONSOFRESPOND ENT NO.2/ COMPLAINANT 5.1. The alleged speech was made as part of a 'strategic and we planned. political narrative to confuse the SC. ST, and OBC voters.

5.2. The alleged false statements of the petitioner have created mistrust, ill- will, and fear among the voters. Further, the said statements have brought the BJP into disrepute and have caused damage to rhe BJp in the 2024 General Elections. \ l0 KL,J Crl.P. No.582l ot2025

5.3. Relying on Mohd. Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K8, it was conrended that the ingredients ofSection 499 have been satisfied and the Trial Court was justified in taking cognizance.

5.4 Relying on Arvind Kejriwal v. State of U.P.e, it was argued that Section 125 of the RP Act, 195 I is attracted, as the alleged speech promotes enmity between different classes of citizens. The Petitioner's categorical appeal to the voters of SC, S! and OBC communities that, the BJP will end reservations is suffrcient prima facie proof of creation of hatred and ill-wilt in these communities. However, the matter was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Crl.) No.13279 of 2024 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the mattet yide order dated 30.09.2024.

5.5 The alleged speech is 'defamatory per se'. The alleged remarks that, 'BJP will abolish SC, ST & BC reservations' is defamatory on the face of it. Reliance was placed on Rohini Singh v. State of Gujaratr0 and Parmodh Sharma v. Onkar Singh Thakurll. .

5.6. The Petitioner cannot contend that, political parties stand on a different footing and are not entitled to reputation. Relying on Arvind Kejriwal v. (2018) r ssc 615 2023 SCC Online AII t4 20lE SCC OnLine Gui 209 zot\scc onr.in" udz: r K I,.J Crl.P No.5823 of 2025 Stater2and G. Narsimhan v. T.V. Chokkupprt', it was contended that political parties are recognised by the Constitution oI India and are an 'association ofpeople'under Section 499 of the IPC. Therefore, they are entitled to reputation and initiate proceedings against any individual for defamation

5.7. A political party, like the Complainant, is an identifiable body. It can be an 'aggrieved person' under Explanation 2 of Section 499 ol the IPC. Therefore, a criminal complaint against defamation is maintainable at the instance o1- a political party. Reliance is placed on Telugu Desam Party v. Union of Indiara and Shashi Tharoor v. State (NCT of Delhi)[5.

5.8. Relying on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of Indiar6, it was contended that right lo free speech cannot mean that a pcrson can defame another person.

5.9. A defence of good faith cannot be pleaded by the Petitioner as he failed to exercise care and caution. Further, the repetition of offensive statements disentitles him to claim the benefits of exceptions to Section 499 of the ''?. 2021 SCC Online Del 719 'r. (1972) 2 scc 680 '0. MANU t-f L/oti9/2024 't. 202.1 SCC OnLine Del 6005 'u. (2016) 7 scc 221 :.:. /.t t2 KL.J C.l.P No.5823 of 2025 IPC. Reliance is flaced on Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. KaranjiarTand Paras Dass Son ofJugal Kishore v. Paras Dass Son ofBaji Nath.18 >. 10. The contents of the complaint dated 10.05 .2024 make out a prima facie case of defamation. The learned Magistrate, only after satisfiing that a primafacie case is made out issued notice to the Petitioner - Accrsed vide order dated 23.08.2024. At this stage, the magistrate is not expected to give detailed reasons. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order daled 23.08.2024. Reliance is placed on Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)re.

5.11. The discretion of the leamed Magistrate cannot be lightly interfered with. Reliance is placed on Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra2o and Nagawwa v. V.S. Konjalgi2r.

5.12. The representative of the Complainant i.e., Mr. Kasam Venkateshwarlu was authorised under law to represent. No formal authorization is required under Section 200 of the CrPC to file a complaint alleging defamation. ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION .No.5823,of 2025 o 2 AIJE 2$6 Z * * ALLOWING THE CRL. PETITION q ^) 1 v g 7^