Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K.LAKSHMAN
Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the State appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), to quash the proceedings in Crime No.118 of 2024 of Mahadevpur Police Station by calling for records in relation to the said crime.
3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in the aforesaid Crime. The offences alleged against them are under Section - 223 (b) read with 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). The aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioners pursuant to the report given by respondent No.2. The allegations made against the petitioners in the said report are as follows:
i. Respondent No.2, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer at Laxmi Barrage, Medigadda. On 26.07.2024 between 12.30 and 2.00 P.M. on the call given by BRS Party working President, petitioner No.1 herein, along with his associates, BRS Party leaders, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein, and their party social media perso
The absence of a lawful order from a public servant invalidates the FIR for disobedience, and significant delay in lodging the complaint undermines its credibility.
The court held that proceedings were quashed as the allegations did not establish a prima facie case for prosecution, emphasizing principles of abuse of process and judicial discretion in criminal ca....
(1) Quashing of criminal proceedings – In exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482 of Code, it is open to High Court to quash FI....
Private complaint – Cognizance of offence - order of the Magistrate for taking cognizance and issuance of process only on the point of deemed sanction is not tenable and there are no valid grounds to....
The court established that multiple FIRs for the same incident are not permissible, reinforcing the need for a single, comprehensive investigation.
The court mandated CBI investigation into unauthorized constructions due to administrative lapses by statutory authorities, emphasizing accountability and structural reforms.
The court held that an FIR must disclose a cognizable offence for investigation to proceed, and allegations of malafide do not negate the existence of such an offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
