[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Rupavath Pavan vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.12518 and 12527 of 2024
Between:
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12518 of 2024:
Rupavath Pavan
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
represented by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad and
another.
... Respondents.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12527 of 2024:
Namindla Shankar
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
represented by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad
and another.
... Respondents.
Date of Judgment pronounced on 08-04-2026
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Judgment?
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.12518 and 12527 of 2024
% 08-04-2026
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12518 of 2024:
# Rupavath Pavan
......... Petitioner
Versus
$ The State of Telangana
represented by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad and
another.
....... Respondents
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner
^ Counsel for the respondents : Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent No. 1.
? Cases referred
1. (2014) 8 SCC 273
2. AIR 2021 SC 64
3. 1990 INSC 363
4. (2016) 12 SCC 87
5. 2016 INSC 960
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.12518 and 12527 of 2024
DATE: 08.04.2026
Between :
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12518 of 2024:
Rupavath Pavan
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
represented by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabadand
another.
... Respondents.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12527 of 2024:
Namindla Shankar
... Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana
represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad
and another.
... Respondents.
COMMON ORDER:
Since both Criminal Petitions arise out of substantially similar
facts and involve common questions of law, they were heard together
and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Learned counsel Mr. K. Venu Madhav represented the
petitioners, while the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Mr. M.
Vivekananda Reddy, appeared for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2
appeared in person and advanced detailed submissions opposing the
petitions.
3. Criminal Petition No.12518 of 2024 has been filed under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking
quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.8730 of 2024 pending before the
XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad,
for offences punishable under Sections 182, 211, and 506 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. Similarly, Criminal Petition No.12527 of 2024 has been filed
under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.
No.8731 of 2024 for offences under Sections 166A(b), 211, 220, 340
read with 342, and 506 IPC.
Factual Background
5.1. The case originates from social media posts allegedly made by
respondent No.2 criticizing prohibitory orders issued under Section 144
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with public
examinations. In a related instance, respondent No.2 commented on a
news article published in Telangana Today.
5.2. Based on these posts, FIR No.104 of 2023 was registered for
offences under Sections 504 and 505(2) IPC. During investigation,
notice under Section 41-A CrPC was issued. However, the said FIR
was subsequently quashed by this Court.
5.3. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed private complaints, which
resulted in cognizance being taken in C.C. Nos.8730 and 8731 of
2024. The petitioners, being police officials (Station House Officer and
Sub-Inspector), assert that their actions were undertaken in discharge
of official duties.
Submissions of the Petitioners
6.1. The petitioners contend that the allegations in the complaint,
even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the ingredients of
the offences alleged. It is argued that Section 166A(b) IPC requires
wilful disobedience of legal directions, which is absent. Section 211
IPC requires a false charge with intent to cause injury, which is not
established. Section 220 IPC is inapplicable as there is no unlawful
exercise of authority. Allegations do not disclose wrongful confinement
under Sections 340 or 342 IPC. No material exists to establish criminal
intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
6.2. The petitioners further submit that all actions namely registration
of FIR and issuance of notice under Section 41-A CrPC were
performed in the lawful discharge of official duties. Consequently,
protection under Section 197 CrPC is attracted, and in the absence of
prior sanction from the competent authority, the cognizance taken by
the Magistrate is without jurisdiction. It is also contended that
continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and
results in unnecessary harassment, particularly in light of the earlier
quashing of the FIR.
Submissions of Respondent No.2
7.1. Respondent No.2 vehemently opposes the petitions, contending
that the actions of the petitioners were illegal, arbitrary, and constituted
a gross abuse of authority. It is specifically alleged that he was
unlawfully detained at the police station for several hours prior to
registration of the FIR, rendering such detention unconstitutional and
without legal authority.
7.2. It is further submitted that no valid notice under Section 41-A
CrPC was served and that acknowledgment was obtained under
coercion. Such acts, according to the respondent, amount to wrongful
confinement and cannot be treated as acts performed in discharge of
official duty.
7.3. Reliance is placed on the decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized
strict compliance with Section 41-A CrPC, and on Paramvir Singh Saini
v. Baljit Singh, AIR 2021 SC 64, which mandates installation and
preservation of CCTV footage in police stations.
7.4. The respondent further raises issues relating to jurisdiction,
contending that the subject matter pertains to social media content
and, therefore, falls within the domain of the Information Technology
Act. It is argued that the registration of the crime and the subsequent
actions undertaken by the petitioners clearly reflect mala fide intent.
The respondent also alleges that the petitioners have suppressed
material facts, thereby disentitling themselves from the grant of any
discretionary relief.
Submissions of the Prosecution
8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after due consideration of the
material on record and that a charge sheet has been filed, thereby
disclosing a prima facie case warranting trial.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the
materials on record.
Analysis and Findings
10. This Court is guided by the settled principles laid down in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 INSC 363, which delineate the limited
scope of interference at the stage of quashing. It is well established
that the Court must examine whether the allegations, taken at face
value, disclose the commission of any offence.
11. Upon consideration of the material on record, this Court finds
that the allegations of illegal detention prior to registration of FIR,
coercion in obtaining acknowledgment under Section 41-A CrPC, and
abuse of police authority, if accepted as true, prima facie disclose the
ingredients of cognizable offences such as wrongful confinement and
misuse of authority.
12. With regard to the protection under Section 197 CrPC, it is
settled law, as laid down in Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016)
12 SCC 87, and Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, 2006 INSC
960, that such protection is available only when the acts complained of
bear a reasonable nexus with official duty. Acts which are manifestly
illegal or constitute abuse of authority fall outside its scope.
13. In the present case, allegations of illegal detention and coercion,
if established, cannot be said to be acts done in lawful discharge of
official duties. Therefore, absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC
does not warrant quashing at this stage.
14. Further, non-compliance with Section 41-A CrPC, as
emphasized in Arnesh Kumar(supra), and failure to preserve CCTV
footage as mandated in Paramvir Singh Saini (supra), raise serious
concerns regarding procedural safeguards and accountability. The
issues relating to the registration of the crime against respondent No.2,
the applicability of the Information Technology Act, and the jurisdiction
of the petitioners in initiating the crime proceedings against the
respondent No.2, involve mixed questions of law and fact, which
cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage.
15. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the allegations, when taken at face value, disclose a prima
facie case requiring adjudication on evidence. The issues raised
involve disputed questions of fact and do not fall within the categories
warranting quashing as laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra).
16. Accordingly, both Criminal Petitions are dismissed. The trial
Court shall proceed with C.C. Nos.8730 and 8731 of 2024 in
accordance with law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 08.04.2026
MRKR
