The court quashed the cognizance order due to lack of credible evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, and absence of eyewitnesses, indicating an abuse of process of law.

ORDER :

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

Heard Smt. Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel representing Sri M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of 2^nd respondent.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to quash the cognizance order dated 28.03.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r ) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) (for short, the SC&ST Act’) and issuing summons to the petitioner herein/accused in SC.SPL.No.46 of 2024 by the Special Sessions Court for SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989, Nalgonda.

Facts of the case:-

3. On the complaint dated 01.11.2023, the Police, Kattangoor Police Station, have registered a case in Cr.No.185 of 2023 against the petitioner herein. In the said complaint, 2^nd respondent stated that he was working as a Member of Flying Squad Team (FST) team and he was on election duty in Kattangoor. It came to his notice that on 01.11.2023, the petitioner, the Former Deputy Chairman of Telangana Legislative Council, on 31.10.2023 at about 1.30 P.M., came to Kattangoor village for the purpose of participating in election campaign, gave speech on the road at Kattangoor centre. He abused the then sitting Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Nakrekal Assembly Constituency belongs to BRS party in abusive and filthy language. The petitioner belongs to Kapu community. Therefore, the petitioner insulted the sitting MLA of Nakrekal, a Member of SC/ST community and therefore, he requested the Sub Inspector of Police, Kattangoor Police Station, to take action against the petitioner herein.

4. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police, Kattangoor have registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences.

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of 2^nd respondent as L.W.1, Sri Vutukuru Edukondalu, who has submitted a complaint to the 2^nd respondent on 01.11.2023, eye witness, as L.W.2, Puligilla Venkanna, who videographed speech of accused in his cell phone, transferred the same into pen drive and handed over to L.W.1, Katikam Srini, Mooda Sushma, Pogula Anjaiah, Mainam Deender, as L.Ws.4 to 7, the victim as L.W.8, a police personnel, the circumstantial witness as L.W.9, who photographed and videographed the entire statements of witnesses, the panch witnesses to the seizure of pen drive as L.W.10 and 11, panch witnesses for the scene of offence, rough sketch as L.ws.12 and 13 and Tahsildar, Narkatpally, who issued caste certificate to the victim as L.W.14 and Tahsildar, Nakrekal, who issued caste certificate of the petitioner/accused, as L.W.15. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences.

6. Vide docket order, dated 28.03.2024, learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases –cum-II Additional District and Sessions Court at Nalgonda, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition.

7. Smt. Devineni Radha Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the contents of the said complaint lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein.

There is delay of one day in lodging the complaint. Victim was examined on 06.11.2023 i.e. after seven days of the alleged incident and after six days of registration of the said crime. The 2^nd respondent is neither victim nor an eye witness. On his complaint, the Police cannot register the aforesaid case against the petitioner and without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid c