S/O K. Chandrashekar Rao, vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5121 Tel

Telangana High Court

S/O K. Chandrashekar Rao, vs The State Of Telangana on 28 April, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.2577 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri

Y.Sri Raghava Rao, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No.13464 of 2024 pending on the file of

III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The

offences alleged against the petitioner herein/sole accused are

punishable under Sections 504 and 505(2) of Indian 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 29.03.2024 of 2nd

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, Hyderabad, BRS

KL,J

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 reputation 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 false 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, Banjara 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

KL,J

of investigation, he has laid charge sheet before the III Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, and the same is

taken on file vide C.C.No.13464 of 2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

contents of the complaint, dated 29.03.2024 of 2nd respondent and the

statements of L.Ws.1 and 2 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid

offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The petitioner is former

Minister and present MLA, from Sircilla Assembly Constituency.

Therefore, the entire allegations made in the complaint 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

offences 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 not 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 silent on the aspect of

who is the person, who has been insulted and that such person would

KL,J

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, learned Public Prosecutor, and

Sri Y.Sri Raghava Rao, learned 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. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that

the acts of the petitioner mentioned in the complaint attracts the

KL,J

provisions of the aforesaid offences. The petitioner has been spreading

false information 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 acts of the petitioner

constitute offences alleged against him. The contention of the

petitioner that there is no intent or mens rea on the part of the

petitioner is misconceived. The petitioner who is in a responsible

position 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, the

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 of IPC and the same are extracted

hereunder:

Section 504:- Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace-Whoever intentionally insults 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

KL,J

description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 505 (2): Statements conducing to public mischief.--

(2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement 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 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 with fine, or with 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

KL,J

break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be

punishable.

11. As per Section 505 (2) of IPC, whoever makes, publishes or

circulates any statement 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 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 with fine, or with

both.

12. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (supra), the Apex Court at

paragraph Nos.12 and 24 held as under:-

"12.... The words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates used in the setting of Section 505 (2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to each other. If 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, we wish to observe that the manner in which convictions have been

KL,J

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 framed against the appellant for 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 citizen for offences of such serious nature like sedition and promoting enmity and hatred etc. does harm to the cause. It is expected that the graver the offence, greater should be the care taken so that the liberty of a citizen 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 different 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

KL,J

that those statements, in any case, would create rumors, promote

enmity, hatred or ill-will between two classes of persons or between

different religions, race, language or regional groups or castes or

communities. Viewed from any angle, the alleged statement made by

the petitioner-accused would not fulfill the requirements under

Section 505 (2) of IPC. Furthermore, there is no mens rea creating or

promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of

people. The petitioner-accused is facing prosecution for the offences

punishable under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC. The Investigating

Officer did not classify whether the offence alleged against the

petitioner-accused falls under Section 505 (2) of IPC or not. Even the

allegations made in the FIR and the statements recorded by the police,

there is mention with regard to provocation, enmity, hatred or ill-will

between different class of people etc.

14. As discussed supra, the contents of the FIR as well as the

statements of witnesses filed along with charge sheet lack the

ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 505 (2)

of IPC without considering the same, the Investigating Officer has

laid charge sheet against the petitioner and learned Magistrate took

cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein.

KL,J

Therefore continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.13464 of 2024

on the file of learned III Additional Chief Judicial magistrate 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.13464 of 2024 pending on the file of III

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, against

the petitioner-accused are liable to 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 Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, against

the petitioner-accused are quashed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

criminal petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:28.04.2025 vvr