Sankineni Krishnarao v. The State of Telangana

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings to the cc No 35 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First class at Thungathurthy suryapet including appearance of the Petitioner herein This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri N Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Publrc Prosecut, lr on behalf of the Respondents. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 168O1 of 20.25, DATE: O9.O6.2O26 Between : Sankineni Krishnarao AND The State of Telangana arld another Petitioner/ accu sed No. 1 :ORDER: Respondents This Criminal Petition has been hled by the petitioner/ accu sed No.I seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.35 of 2019 on the hle ol the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Thungathurty, for the offence under Section 17 1 (E) of the Indian Penal Code, I 860 (for short, 'the IPC').

#2. Brief facts of the case: On 20.10.2018 at 17 .3O hours, a complaint uide Lr.No.C/2727 12018, dated 20.1,O.2018, \&'as received from respondent No.2, wherein it was stated lvith reference to the complainant from Gugulothu Deepla Naik S/o.Gaarya, 46 years, ST (Lambada), Agrl., R/o.Ramannagudem Village, Thungathurty Mandal and on thc directions of the District Collector, Suryapet, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Suryapet, arrd Returning Officer 96 2 Assembll' Constituenc:r', Thungathurty, on 14.10.2018, one Sankeneni Krishan Rao, A1 contractor and owner of SKR Constructions donatr.d benches (36) to ZPHS, Thungathurtt'. On

16.10 2018, the Elecr.ion Commission of India, declared noLification for the :lec-[ions oi State Assembly oI Telangana State vide No.ECI tP\/(>612018, dated 06.10.2018 and same is enforce, the said Sankeneni Krishna Rao, contravened the mode code of conduct, so he issue(l form of charge under Section 171 IPC to the said Xrishna Rao and rn-charge HM Jogunuri Surnder Rao', and requested lo take legal action against the said persons, r,,",ho are contravencd elections rules, as per laur.

#3. Heard N4r. N. Navccn Kumar. learned counsel frtr the petitioner, and Mr. .iithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Rtblic Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents,

#1. Learned counsel lor the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present crse. Even according to the allegations levelled in the complaint, the final rcport and the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. the ingredients of the offence uncler Section 171E of the IPC are not attra('tc'd.

4.1. He -rrrll.rer Zil1a Paris raci High School. 'lhungathurthv, donated il6 deck-benches submittr:d the petitioner, being a fc, rmer student of to the said School. 'lhr: petitioner did not contest the Cienera.l Elections 3 to the State t€gislative Assembly, particularly from the Thungathurty constituency, which is reserved for ST (Lambada) candidates. Therefore, the question of the donation amounting to gratif-rcation does not arise and the petitioner has not violated any code of conduct promulgated by the Election Commission. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investrgation, examined LWs.1 and 2. The Investigating Officer specifrcally mentioned in the final report that no incriminating material was found in support of the prosecution case and also caused discreet enquiries about the allegations made by the complainant. In spite of the same, the Investigating Officer filed the final report and the learned trial Court, without properly examining the statements of the witnesses and other material, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the petitioner, which is contrary to law. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of law.

4.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the common order passed by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.152 and 5696 of 2025 dated r 8.08.202 5.

#5. Per contra, learned Addit.ional Public Prosecutor submitted that lr.,hether the allegations levelled in the complarnt and the statements of the witnesses are true or not, the same can be revealed after full-fledged trial. He further submitted that there are specihc allegations levelled against the petitioner and truthfulness of those allegations has to be 4 determint:d during the course of trieLl. Therefore, tht: petitioner is not entitlcd to seek cluashinq ol the proceedings Ila, ring considcrecl the subnlissions made try the respective 6. partics and npon perusal of the material available on record, it revea-ls that the l)etitioner is a scnior citizen. According to the learned counsel for thc pt:titioner. the pctitroner pursued his primary education al Zllla Parishad High School, Thungathulthy. Taking the sard fact into considerzLtion, he donated 36 deck benches to the said school as a welfarc nleasure. It is further submitted that the pt:titioner is not an aspirarlt to cont(tst thc (leneral Elcr:t ion to the State i\ssemb11' from the Thungathurty ConstituencY

#7. Even according to the parties, Thungathurtl' Assembll' Constitur:ncr is reserved lor Schcduled Tribe (Lambada) candidates, u,herc:rs the pctltioner belongs to Open Category (O C ) The record also reve:rls trat thc Investigaring officer, after recording the statements of LWs. 1 ar-rd 2. came to the conclusion that no incriminating material u,as founc1 in support ol the allegatrons madc b1'respondent No 2' It .s also relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 171E of the

#8. IPC 171E. Punrshment lor brtber-v Whoer er commits rhe offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonn-,ent o: eLther description for a term rvhich may extend to on(' l car. or r,,'rt h line, or with both; Provided that bribery by treating sha1l be ounished rr.ith llne onlr. 5 Explanation. "Treating" means that form of bribery where the gratlfication consists rn lood, drink, entertainment, or provision.

#9. The above said provision clearly reveals tlfat the ingredients of the offenie under Section 171E of the IPC are not attracted in the present case. Merely on the basis of reports published in the print and electronic media indicating that the petitioner was likely to contest the Assembly Elections 2018 as a BJP candidate from Thungathurty Assembly Constituency, the petitioner was implicated as al accused lor the offence under Section 171E of the IPC. It is pertinent to note that the said Assembly Constituency is reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Lambada) candidates. It is already stated supra, the petitioner belongs to Open Category (O.C.) tO. To attract an offence under Section 171B of the IPC. the requirement is that he should be a person, who give or at least offers to give any gratillcation as a reward for exercising the electoral right or for having exercised such a right, b1. alother person. There is no mention in the complaint dated 20.10.2018 of respondent No.2 and in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and also the statement of LW.2 that the petitioner offered 36 deck-benches to the School as gratification.

#11. In Keslneni Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.l, the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that term gratification should be understood in the perspective of the recipient rather than the I 2015 SCC Online Hyd 1013 6 giver tha- is to saY whatever has been paid by the giver should give pleasure or satisfaction to the recipient. The term gratification is not restricled to pocuniary gratification or gratification estimable in money lI emLrraces all lorn'is oi gr:rtifica'.ion in the ordinary and simple meaning of tcrm gratificatlon. The scope ol the meaning of the u'ord gratilicatron is thus very wide and u'ill cover any return which pleases for some favour done ln ordcr to hold a person guilty of offering bribe Lo anolh€r person under Seclton 17]B of IPC, the giv,'r may pa) mone\ or kind 1o the recipient but it must please or satisly the recipient to exerr:ise ernl- elcctoral right.

#12. In the light of the above. as discussr:d above, in the present case' the contlnts of complarnr dated 20.10.2018 and the statements of L\['s. 1 ard 2 lack the ingredients of offence under Section 171B of lPC.

#13. In Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.2, the Apr:x Court held in paragraph No.6 as under ''6. S.ction 107 IPC dcfines abetment of a thirg The offcnce of abetment is a separate and drstinct offence provided rr the Act as an offencc. A person, abets the doing ol a thtng rrhcn {l) he instigates any p€rson do that thing, or (2) engages with one or mole other persons in anv conspiraclr for the doing of that thing; or (3) intcntionallr. arids, b1'act or illegal omission, the cloing ol that thlng. These things are esse-ltial to complcte abetment as a crime. The word instrgate liLcrally means to provoke. incite, urge on cr bring '] 1zoozl ro scc zsz 7 about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the lhree clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence lor the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normdly linked with the proved offence."

#14. In the present case, the contents of the complaint dated

20.10.2018 and the statements of LWs.l and 2 lack the ingredients ol Section 107 of the IPC.

#15. The Investigating Officer did not examine any voter or any independent witness to prove that the petitioner offered gratification. In the absence of the same, prosecuting the petitioner for the offence under Section 1 7 t B of the IPC is impermissible.

#16. In State of Haryana v. BhaJan Lal3, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complarnt. quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquir)' as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the sard judgment laid down certain 3 lrssz; supp. 1 scc 335 8 guidelrner; /paramcters for cxt'rcise of pou'ers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. v,hich are as under i 1) Wherr: the allcgations made in thr: hrst inlormation report or the complaint, even i[ tlrey are raken at lheir face value and accepted in their entiretl'do not prima facie constilute anv offt:nce or make out a case againsr the accused. (2) 'rUhere thc allegations in the hrst information report and other materials. if any, accompanying the FIR do not discLose a cognizable offence, justif'.,ing an investigation by policr: olficers under Section 156(i) ol the Code cxcept under an order of a Mallistrate u'ithin the pun'ier,' of Section 155(2) of the Code. in the (3) Wherr: the uncontroverted allegations mad€ FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support oI Lhe samc do not disclose the comrnission o[ any offcrnce and make out a case against the accu sed (-11 Wl]erc t1e allegations in rhe FIR do not constitute a cognrzable offencc but constitute only ir non cognrzablc rffence, no inves[igation is permitt('d by a police olllcer r.r.ithout an ordcr of a N{aglst!ate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ol the Code. (5) Whcre the allcgations made in the FIR or compLaint rrre so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of rvhrch no prudent person can ever rcach a jr-rsr- conclusion that there is sufltcient ground for proceerd-ng against thc accused. (61 Where there is an cxpress iegal bar engrafted in any of the provisLons of the Code or the Act conce rncr[ (under rr. hich a criminal procee<ling is institute(l) 1o ',he lnsrrtution and conlinuance of lhe proceedir.tgs and/or where there rs a specific 9 provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacior-rs redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7i Where a criminal proceeding is malifestly attended with mala fide ald/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 arld personal grudge." L7. The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. 18, For the foregoing reasons and in view of the precedent decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the contrnuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.

#19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.3S of 2Ol9 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of F irst Class at Thungathurty, are hereby quashed against the petitioner. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, ,w

#1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Thungathurthy Suryapet' 2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thungathurthy 3. The Statton House Officer, Thungathurthy Police Station, Suryapet' 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT]

#5. One CC to Sri N Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Sa/KA HIGH COUFIT DATED: 0914G12026 ORDER CRLP.No.16801 of 2025 HL S'T4 1 )s e d 19JUll2026 z o I o Es, 'ATCB * ALLOWING THE CRIMlNAL PETITION 0 1 lr, t