Vague allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under the IPC or IT Act; thus, the proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of process.

ORDER :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

The Criminal Petition is for quashing of the records related to FIR.No.590 of 2024 on the file of P.S. Medipally, Rachakonda, registered against the petitioners pursuant to the complaint made by the respondent No.2 for the alleged offences under sections 505(2) of The INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (‘IPC’) and sections 66C and 66D of The Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’).

2. The petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is a Member of the Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’) from Sircilla Assembly Constituency, State of Telangana and is the working President of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) Political Party. The petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Suryapet Assembly Constituency, State of Telangana.

3. The respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant who contested for the Graduate Member of the Legislative Council (‘MLC’) Elections for Warangal-Nalgonda-Khammam Constituency in the elections held on 27.05.2024. The learned Public Prosecutor represents the respondent No.1/State of Telangana.

4. The FIR states that the petitioners were indulging in a vicious, scandalous and malicious campaign by circulating fake videos on social media platforms with the sole intention of damaging the reputation of the de facto complainant and to sway the electoral outcome in the ensuing MLC elections in the State of Telangana.

5. In the counter, the respondent No.1/State of Telangana states that the Investigating Officer issued a Notice dated 15.04.2025 under sections 91 and 160 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) to the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 for producing relevant evidence pertaining to the case but that the de facto complainant neither appeared before the Investigating Officer nor submitted any explanation in response to the Notice dated 15.04.2025. The Investigating Officer was hence constrained to issue another Notice under sections 91 and 160 of the Cr.P.C. on 18.06.2025 giving three days to the complainant for producing the relevant evidence pertaining to the case which was also not acted upon by the complainant. The respondent No.1 further states that the investigation cannot be stayed at the threshold since further investigation is necessary.

6. In his counter, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, states that the said respondent was not able to submit proper evidence by reason of his busy schedule and that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to collect the evidence by personally visiting the complainant’s office.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have made their respective submissions and placed relevant material and case law in support of their arguments.

8. The allegations in the Complaint dated 25.05.2024 are stated below:

(i) The de facto complainant/respondent No.2 states that he was fielded by the Indian National Congress for contesting the MLC elections scheduled for 27.05.2024.

(ii) The opposition political party BRS under the leadership of its working President Mr.Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao and Mr.Ramesh Babu (Personal Assistant of Mr.Jagadeeshwara Reddy, BRS MLA, Suryapet) is indulging in a vicious, scandalous and malicious campaign by circulating fake videos on social media platforms.

(iii) with the sole intention of damaging the de facto complainant’s reputation, and (iv) to sway the outcome of the en