[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
A. Vara Prasad Reddy vs Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises on 31 March, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1254 of 2026
Between :
A. Vara Prasad Reddy
S/o. A. Venkateshwara Reddy
Aged: 68 years, Occ: Buisness,
Resident of Village No.39, Hill ridge Villas,
Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy, Telangana
....Petitioner/Accused
VERSUS
Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises
Represented by its Partner K. Sanjeev Kumar Reddy
Running business under the name and style of
Le Vantage at premises No.8-2-293/82/A/197,
Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033 and another
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 31.03.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.1254 of 2026
% Dated 31.03.2026
# A. Vara Prasad Reddy
S/o. A. Venkateshwara Reddy
Aged: 68 years, Occ: Buisness,
Resident of Village No.39, Hill ridge Villas,
Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy, Telangana
....Petitioner/Accused
VERSUS
$ Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises
Represented by its Partner K. Sanjeev Kumar Reddy
Running business under the name and style of
Le Vantage at premises No.8-2-293/82/A/197,
Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033 and another
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. N. Naveen Kumar
^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Darmesh D.K. Jaiswal (Respondent
No.1)
Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1-State
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2009) 1 SCC 101
2. (2020) 4 SCC 162
3. 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 20758
4. (2019) 14 SCC 350
3
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1254 of 2026
DATE:31.03.2026
Between :
A. Vara Prasad Reddy
....Petitioner/Accused
AND
Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises,
and another
....Respondents
:ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 582 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the
petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7472
of 2023 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Nampally, registered for the offence punishable under
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint under Section 190(1)
and (a) of Cr.P.C. read with 200 of Cr.P.C., on 09.05.2023 before the
XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad, against the petitioner for the offence under Section 499 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') punishable under
Section 500 of the IPC, stating that respondent No.1 is a partnership
firm engaged in the business of running a Lounge under the name
and style of 'LE VANTAGE' in a rental premises bearing Municipal
No.8-2-293/82/A/197, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred
to, as 'the subject property'). The firm has also registered its
trademark namely 'Le Vantage Café Bar' with the Government of
India, dated 28.06.2018 and 29.11.2019 and the Registrar of
Trademarks issued the certificates of registration under Form RG-2,
dated 21.12.2018 and 29.11.2019.
2.2. It is further stated that the petitioner and his wife are owners of
the land admeasuring 1672 sq. yards situated in Plot No.197 and
197/A, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the
same in the year 2004. Respondent No.1 approached the petitioner
in the year 2016 and let out the above said premises on lease and
executed a registered rental agreement bearing document No.6316 of
2016 dated 03.12.2016 for a period of three years commencing from
03.12.2016 to 02.11.2019.
2.3. When the petitioner and his son came to the subject property
on 23.09.2019 along with antisocial elements and threatened
respondent No.1 and his wife to vacate the premises, respondent No.1
filed a suit in O.S.No.2225 of 2019 before the VII Junior Civil judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 24.09.2019,seeking a permanent
injunction restraining the petitioner and his henchmen from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the
subject property and the trial Court, by order dated 11.11.2019,
granted an ad interim injunction in I.A.No.513 of 2019 and the said
injunction order is in force.
2.4. On 23.07.2020, the petitioner along with his wife filed a suit in
O.S.NO.195 of 2020 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to vacate the
subject property and deliver vacant physical possession and also
recovery of arrears of rent with interest @ 18 % per annum. The
petitioner stated that he had received cheques towards rent from
respondent No.1, but he had not encashed the said cheques. In the
said suit, the petitioner and his wife also filed I.A.No.148 of 2022
seeking permission to deposit a sum of Rs.2,31,916/- towards
arrears of rent. It is also stated that respondent No.1 had earlier filed
a suit in O.S.NO.1801 of 2019 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and his wife seeking
specific performance of the registered lease deed titled as a rental
agreement dated 03.12.2016 and for a direction to them to execute
and register a fresh lease deed and the said suit is also pending.
2.5. He further stated that the petitioner filed W.P.No.19115 of 2020
before this Court challenging the renewal of the bar license issued in
favour of respondent No.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another
writ petition namely W.P.No.37762 of 2022 questioning the action of
the District Prohibition and Excise Officer and others in receiving the
application of respondent No.1 for renewal of 2B bar license and
sought a direction not to renew the said licence for the year 2022-
2023. In the said writ petition, this Court granted by order dated
28.09.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 directed the District Prohibition and
Excise Officer to consider the application submitted by respondent
No.1 for renewal of 2B bar license strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar
and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules'). He
further stated that the petitioner also filed W.P.No.17651 of 2022
before this Court seeking a direction to the GHMC authorities not to
renew the trade licence in favour of respondent No.1.
2.6. Respondent No.1 further stated that on 30.10.2022, the
petitioner unlawfully entered upon the subject property, namely, Le
Vantage Café and Bar run by respondent No.1 and his wife, along
with several news reporters and camera men, into the private parking
area of the café with an intention to defame respondent No.1 and his
wife and the petitioner made defamatory statements against
respondent No.1 and his wife, which were broadcast on news
channels, published in newspapers and circulated on YouTube
channels. It was also stated that the confrontation with respondent
No.1 and its partners was telecast on the Tolivelugu TV YouTube
channel. In the said complaint, in paragraph No.24, respondent No.1
mentioned the defamatory statements made by the petitioner.
2.7. In the said complaint, respondent No.1 averred that he and his
wife had taken the premises of the petitioner on lease through a
rental agreement dated 03.12.2016 and had obtained necessary
permissions from the competent authority to run a cafe and bar in
the said premises. The competent authority granted the required
permissions and issued a licence for the sale of Indian Made Foreign
Liquor/Foreign Liquor by Bar for consumption on the premises on
26.03.2016 after following the due procedure. He also stated that the
GHMC authorities had also granted a trade licence in his favour on
19.04.2017 and accordingly, respondent No.1 has been running the
café and bar in the name Le Vantage Cafe Bar and the said licensing
authority has been renewing the licence from time to time upon
receipt of requisite licence fee and respondent No.1 has been paying
rent regularly.
2.8. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements of
respondent No.1 and other witnesses, and upon due perusal of the
complaint, sworn statements of the witnesses and data contained in a
pen drive, took cognizance of the offence under Section 499 of the IPC
and issued summons to the petitioner, by its order dated 20.09.2023.
2.9. According to the parties, the evidence of respondent No.1 is
commenced. At that juncture, the petitioner filed the present
criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7472 of
2023.
3. Heard Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing
Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Darmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
Ms. S. Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not
committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the
ingredients of the offence under Section 499 of the IPC are not
attracted. The petitioner has not made any defamatory words and
statements against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed the
private complaint only with an intention to harass the petitioner and
to squat on the property illegally, though the lease agreement was
expired long back and to settle the civil disputes pending between
them before the competent civil Court by giving a criminal colour.
4.2. He further submitted that the competent authority, by order
dated 19.10.2024, rejected the application submitted by respondent
No.1 for renewal of the 2B bar license. Challenging the said order,
respondent No.1 had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.29567
of 2024 and also filed another W.P.No.28529 of 2024 questioning the
action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 therein in interfering with the
business and sealing the bar counter, fridge, liquor store, and liquor
refrigerator without any proceedings, as being illegal. The said two
writ petitions were clubbed together and this Court by way of a
common order dated 30.12.2024 dismissed both the writ petitions,
holding that the petitioner firm did not have a valid lease deed and
that the rejection order passed by the competent authority was valid.
Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 filed writ appeals vide
W.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2025 and the Division Bench of this Court,
by a common judgment dated 05.02.2025, dismissed the said writ
appeals. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed Special Leave to Appeal (c)
Nos.7711-7712 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
said appeals were also dismissed on 28.10.2025. In spite of the
same, respondent No.1 with an intention to continue in the premises
illegally without any manner of right and to settle the pending civil
disputes filed the present complaint by giving it a criminal colour.
4.3. He further submitted that the alleged allegations mentioned in
the complaint do not fall within the ambit of defamation and essential
ingredients are not made out to attract the offence under Section 499
IPC and to attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC, the essential
ingredients i.e., (i) there must be an imputation made by the
petitioner (ii) such imputation must have been made by words
(spoken or written) signs or visible representations (iii) such
imputation must concern a specific person or a definable class of
persons; and (iv) the imputation must have been made or published
with the intention to harm, or with knowledge or reason to believe
that it will harm, the reputation of such person must be satisfied and
the said ingredients are absent in the complaint lodged by respondent
No.1.
4.4. He further submitted that even if the contents of the complaint
are taken to be consider as true, without admitting the same, the
imputations allegedly made by the petitioner falls with the Exceptions
(i), (iv) and (ix) of Section 499 of IPC. The learned trial Court, without
properly verifying the contents of the complaint, documents and the
proceedings pending between the parties before the competent civil
Court, took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner, which
is contrary to law. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings
against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1:
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that there are specific
allegations levelled against the petitioner that on 30.10.2022 he
entered the premises i.e., Le Vantage Café and Bar, which was being
run by respondent No.1 and his wife, along with several news
reporters and camera men, and made defamatory words and
statements against respondent No.1 and his wife. The said
defamatory words and statements were covered by news channels,
newspapers and YouTube channels. The defamatory material was
also published in ToliVelugu TV YouTube channel along with its
Telugu and English scribes. The defamatory imputations have been
extracted in paragraph No.24 of the complaint. Along with the
complaint, respondent No.1 filed a pen drive before the trial Court.
He further submitted that the learned trial Court, after recording the
statements of respondent No.1 and his wife, took cognizance and
issued summons. He further submitted that as on the date of the
alleged incident, i.e., 30.10.2022, the licence and authorization
issued by the competent authorities were subsisting and respondent
No.1 was running the café and bar with proper authorization. The
words and defamatory imputations used by the petitioner attract the
ingredients of the offence under Section 499 of the IPC.
5.2. The pendency of the civil suits, namely O.S.No.2225 of 2019
filed by respondent No.1 for grant of perpetual injunction,
O.S.No.1801 of 2019 seeking specific performance of registered lease
deed for execution of a fresh lease deed, and O.S.No.195 of 2025 filed
by the petitioner and his wife seeking recovery of possession are
nothing to do with the present complaint. The allegations made in
the complaint pertain to the year 2022 and the petitioner made
defamatory statements against respondent No.1 and his wife and
other government officials.
5.3. He further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to seek
quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.7472 of 2023 based on
subsequent events, such as rejection of renewal of the 2B bar licence
on 19.10.2024 and dismissal of W.P.Nos.28529, 29567 of 2024 dated
13.12.2024, dismissal of W.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2025 dated
05.02.2025, and dismissal of S.L.A. (C) Nos.7711-7712 of 2025 dated
28.10.2025. The said proceedings are subsequent to the alleged
offence, which took place on 30.10.2022, especially when there are
specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and substantial
material filed along with complaint before the trial Court to prove that
the petitioner has committed the offence. The grounds which were
raised in the criminal petition are disputed facts, which cannot be
adjudicated in the present criminal petition exercising the powers
under Section 528 of the BNSS and, therefore, the criminal petition is
liable to be dismissed.
5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. Rumugam v. Kittu alias
Krishnamoorthy 1.
6. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor:
6.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial
Court, after recording the statements of respondent No.1 and his
wife, and upon perusal of the contents of the complaint, sworn
statements of the witnesses, and the data contained in the pen drive,
came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against
the petitioner for the offence under Section 499 of the IPC,
punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and accordingly, took
cognizance of the said offence and issued summons. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this
stage.
Analysis :
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner and his wife are owners of a barren
land admeasuring 1672 sq. yards in plot Nos.197 and 197/A,
situated at Road No.13, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Even according to
the parties, the petitioner and his wife executed a registered lease
(2009) 1 SCC 101
agreement in favour of respondent No.1 through a rental agreement
bearing No.6316 of 2015 on 03.12.2016. The said rental agreement
commenced from 03.12.2016 and expired on 02.11.2019. It is also
not in dispute that respondent No.1 has been running a café and bar
in the name of 'Le Vantage' and that the competent authority, namely
the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Hyderabad, granted a
license for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor/Foreign Liquor on
26.03.2016. The GHMC authorities also granted a trade licence on
19.04.2017 and the said licence was renewed from time to time.
After expiry of the lease period, when the petitioner demanded that
respondent No.1 vacate and hand over vacant physical possession of
the subject property, respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.2225 of
2019 before the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad,
seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his
henchmen from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along
with the said suit, respondent No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.513
of 2019 seeking ad interim injunction and the trial Court granted
interim injunction on 11.11.2019.
8. The record further reveals that the petitioner and his wife filed
O.S.No.195 of 2020 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad,
seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to vacate the subject property,
deliver vacant possession and pay arrears of rent along with interest
@ 18 % per annum. It also reveals from the record that respondent
No.1 filed O.S.No.1801 of 2019 before the IV Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance of the registered
lease deed titled as rental agreement dated 03.12.2016 and for a
direction to execute a fresh lease deed. Even according to the parties,
the above three suits are pending before the competent civil Courts.
9. The record further reveals that the petitioner submitted
representation before the Excise Department and GHMC authorities
seeking not to renew the bar licence and trade licence in favour of
respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed W.P.Nos.28529 and 29567
of 2024 questioning the interference by the authorities therein in the
subject property and also questioning the rejection order of renewal
of the 2B licence, respectively. The learned Single Judge of this
Court, by way of a common order dated 13.12.2024, dismissed both
the writ petitions holding that respondent No.1 firm did not have a
valid lease and rejected the contention of deemed renewal under Rule
9A of the Rules. The said order was confirmed by the Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2024 dated 05.02.2025 and
also the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the said Special Leave Appeals
on 28.10.2025.
10. The core contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
is that the petitioner did not use any defamatory words against
respondent No.1 and his wife and that the alleged defamatory
statements do not attract the ingredients of the offence under
Sections 499 of the IPC is concerned, a perusal of the complaint,
respondent No.1 has averred in the complaint regarding the use of
defamatory words/statements against him, his wife, and other
government Excise and GHMC officials, especially in paragraph No.24
of the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner was entered into the
premises along with several news reporters and camera men, in to
the private parking area of the café and the petitioner made
defamatory words/statements against respondent No.1 and his wife
in front of news reporters, which were broadcast on news channels,
published in newspapers and circulated on YouTube channels and
that the confrontation with respondent No.1 and its partners was
telecast on the Tolivelugu TV YouTube channel.
11. The record discloses that the learned Magistrate, upon perusal
of the contents of the complaint, sworn statement of respondent No.1
and other witnesses and data in pen drive, held that it is apparent
that it is the case of the complainant that the accused made
defamatory statements against them stating that the complainant is
illegally selling liquor without licence, selling cheap liquor, giving
bribes to excise officials and obtaining illegal trade licence and they
are not paying huge crores of amount towards rent to the accused
and thereby the reputation of complainant in the society is damaged.
The learned Magistrate while recording satisfaction and by giving
reasons held that a prima facie case under Section 499 of the IPC was
made out against the petitioner and accordingly took cognizance.
Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that the trial Court took cognizance without proper
verification of the complaint, documents, material, and other pending
proceedings is not tenable in law.
12. It is relevant to mention that to constitute the offence of
defamation, there has to be imputation and it must have made in the
manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing
harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the
reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to
the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is
founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said
offence. The complainant has to show that the accused had intended
or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him
would harm the reputation of the complainant. In the case on hand,
respondent No.1 on his complaint specifically mentioned that the
petitioner has made defamatory statements against him and his wife
and other government officials that they are illegally selling liquor
without licence, selling cheap liquor, giving huge bribes to the Excise
Officials, obtained illegal trade licence, doing dhandha, not paying
Crores of rent to the petitioner and top level officials have colluded
with respondent No.1 and taking bribes and the said allegations, on
the face of the record, do not automatically fall within the statutory
Exceptions (i), (iv) and (ix) to Section 499 of the IPC, especially the
burden of proving such exceptions lies on the accused, and the same
must be established during the course of the trial before the trial
Court.
13. The record further reveals that respondent No.1 lodged a
private complaint for the offence took place on 30.12.2022 and the
learned Magistrate, after following the due procedure took cognizance
for the offence under Section 499 of the IPC and issued summons to
the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed W.P.Nos.29567
and 28529 of 2024 questioning the rejection of renewal of 2B licence
and the interference of the respondent authorities therein with the
business of respondent No.1 and this Court, by way of a common
order, both the writ petitions were dismissed on 13.12.2024 and the
said order was confirmed in W.A.Nos.124 and 125 of 2024 dated
05.02.2025 and further affirmed in S.L.A. (C) Nos.7711-7712 of 2025
by order dated 28.10.2025. Based on the above said subsequent
proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is
not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings, especially when
there are specific allegations made in the complaint that the
petitioner made defamatory words/statements against respondent
No.1, his wife and other Government officials, which were telecast on
YouTube channels. Whether the allegations made in the complaint
are true or not cannot be adjudicated by this Court exercising the
powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS and the same has to
be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial.
Even according to the parties, the trial has already commenced.
14. It is relevant to mentioned that in Google India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Visakha Industries 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
publication of defamatory material on digital platforms attracts
liability under Sections 499-500 IPC when the imputation is
communicated to others and is capable of injuring the reputation of
the aggrieved person. The Court clarified that the mode of
dissemination whether physical or electronic is immaterial, and once
a person intentionally publishes reputation-harming content,
criminal defamation stands prima facie established.
15. In M.A. Rumugam supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
allegations made in the complaint makes out a case for proceeding
against the appellant under Section 500 of the IPC as thereby
imputation concerning the respondent had been made intending to
harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation
would harm his reputation.
16. It is relevant to mention that in Pramod Shivashankar v.
(2020) 4 SCC 162
Vaishnavi 3, the Karnataka High Court reiterated that abusive,
derogatory, or false statements made on social media or shared
through online accounts accessible to others constitute "publication"
under Section 499 IPC. The Court observed that digital circulation of
defamatory content whether by words, insinuation, or portrayal
amounts to defamation if it tends to lower the reputation of the
person concerned in the eyes of the public.
17. It is also relevant to mention that in Sau. Kamala Shivaji
Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.4, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to
be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to
prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it
cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution,
but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at
face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The
case on hand does not fall under the ambit of the rarest of rare case
to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7472 of 2023.
18. For the foregoing reasons and precedent judgments, this Court
does not find any ground to quash the proceedings exercising the
inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.
2025 SCC OnLine Kar 20758
(2019) 14 SCC 350
19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However,
taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a senior
citizen aged about 68 years, his presence in C.C. No.7472 of 2023 on
the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Nampally, is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically
required, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent
through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of
non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific dates so fixed by the
trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed
with the matter, in accordance with law. It is needless to mention
that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for
the purpose of deciding this case.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:31.03.2026
L.R. copy to be marked
mar
