Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 415 (TS)

Devireddy Sudheer Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-04-24

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner –accused, Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the State appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.254 of 2025 of L.B. Nagar Police Station. 3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid crime. The offences alleged against him are under Section - 3 (2) (va), 3 (1) (w) (ii) and 3 (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section - 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 4. On the complaint of respondent No.2, dated 17.03.2025, L.B. Nagar Police has registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. 5. As per the complaint, dated 17.03.2025 of respondent No.2, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are as follows: i) On 17.03.2025, the petitioner herein being sitting MLA of L.B. Nagar Assembly Constituency delivered abusive words against respondent No.2 before the Media stating that ‘Honeymoon is running between him and Mr. Madhuyashki, Campaign Committee Chairman & L.B. Nagar Incharge”, even after knowing that she belongs to Lambada Caste (ST) and thereby insulted her modesty which hurts her feelings and her family members. ii) He also degraded her among the people, insulted her and her family members through media. iii) Earlier also, the petitioner insulted her in the name of her caste. 6. To quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime, the petitioner filed the present petition on the following grounds: i) He is sitting MLA of L.B. Nagar Assembly Constituency; ii) Respondent No.2 is the present Corporator of the GHMC; iii) The petitioner belongs to BRS Party, whereas respondent No.2 belongs to BJP. Thus, there is political rivalry between them; iv) Due to the said political rivalry, respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner in the subject crime; v) On receipt of the complaint dated 17.03.2025, the Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar Police Station, without conducting preliminary enquiry registered the subject crime. Thus, there is political rivalry between them; iv) Due to the said political rivalry, respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner in the subject crime; v) On receipt of the complaint dated 17.03.2025, the Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar Police Station, without conducting preliminary enquiry registered the subject crime. Therefore, the same is in violation of the procedure laid down under BNSS and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 vi) The allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless; and vii) Punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner is below seven (07) years. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has to follow the procedure laid down under Section - 35 (2) of the BNSS. 7. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that investigation is pending in the subject crime. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of three (03) witnesses i.e., respondent No.2 as LW.1, Mr. Vanguri Satish Yadav, Raj News Reporter, as LW.2 and Mr. Sala Sunil Kumar, R-TV Electronic Media Reporter, as LW.3. There are serious allegations against the petitioner herein. However, the Investigating Officer will conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under BNSS. 8. Whereas, Mr. Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would submit that that on 17.03.2025, the petitioner had conducted press meet near DCP Office at L.B. Nagar in front of public and openly insulted respondent No.2. The petitioner insulted respondent No.2 in the above manner which hurts her feelings and her family members. He has degraded respondent No.2 among the people. She is present Corporator and public representative. Therefore, scuttling the investigation at the threshold is not proper. 9. Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that though the petitioner filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in Crime No.254 of 2025 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, the petitioner is restricting the relief to the extent of conducting the investigation in the subject crime by following procedure laid down under Section - 35 (2) of the BNSS. 10. Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the Investigating Officer in the subject crime, will follow the procedure laid down under BNSS while conducting investigation. 11. Mr. 10. Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that the Investigating Officer in the subject crime, will follow the procedure laid down under BNSS while conducting investigation. 11. Mr. Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that there are several factual aspects which the Investigating Officer has to consider during the course of investigation and scuttling the investigation at the threshold is not proper. 12. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that the punishments prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioner are follows: Offence Punishment prescribed Sec.3 (2)(va) Simple imprisonment for three (3) years and with fine 3(1)(w)(ii) Not less than six (6) months but which may extend to five (5) years and with fine 3(r) -do- 79 of BNS Simple imprisonment for three (3) years and with fine Therefore, the Investigating Officer has to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the BNSS. He has to consider several allegations made by the petitioner in the Press Meet dated 17.03.2025. The same are certain factual aspects. The Investigating Officer has to obtain CD of the said Press Meet, send it for FSL and obtain FSL Report. He has to conduct investigation with regard to the allegation that respondent No.2 is a Member of Scheduled Tribe community and that the petitioner insulted her and her family members. 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer in Crime No.254 of 2025 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under BNSS. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.