1. Petitioner filed PIL challenging land regularization; complainant alleged extortion demand for withdrawal. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 255
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
J. Sreenivas Rao, J.
Gadeela Raghuveer Reddy, S/o.Gadeela Narasimha Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor and another - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.1844 of 2026
Decided On : 03-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.M. Pratheek Reddy
For the Respondent: Mr. Jithender Rao Veeamalla, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. N. Krishna Kumar
For the Petitioner: Mr.M. Pratheek Reddy
For the Respondent: Mr. Jithender Rao Veeamalla, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. N. Krishna Kumar
An FIR cannot be quashed at the threshold if it prima facie discloses cognizable offences. Additionally, the power to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS is discretionary and enabling, and its non-exercise does not render the registration of an FIR illegal.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 308(3), 351(2) and 3(5) - Extortion and Criminal Intimidation - Allegations of demanding money to withdraw a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and threatening further legal actions - If the FIR, taken at face value, discloses the commission of cognizable offences, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold as the veracity of allegations is a matter of investigation. (Paras 10, 12, 18)
(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 173(3) - Preliminary Enquiry - Power to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists in certain cognizable offences is discretionary and enabling in nature, not mandatory - Non-exercise of such discretion does not render the registration of the FIR illegal. (Paras 16, 17)
(C) Quashing of FIR - Scope of inherent powers - High Court shall exercise its power to quash proceedings sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not constitute any offence or are manifestly mala fide - Investigation should not be interdicted at the nascent stage if a cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR. (Paras 11, 13, 18)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the regularization of certain lands. A complaint was subsequently lodged alleging that the petitioner, through WhatsApp messages and a third party, demanded a substantial sum of money in exchange for withdrawing the PIL and issuing a No Objection Certificate, while threatening further litigation if the demand was not met. Consequently, an FIR was registered for offences including extortion, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaint, specifically regarding the demand for money to withdraw the PIL and the threats made, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offences. It held that since the FIR discloses cognizable offences, the statutory process of investigation must be permitted to run its course, and the veracity of the allegations cannot be decided at the quashing stage.
Issues: Whether the FIR disclosures prima facie constitute cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and whether the absence of a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita justifies quashing the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that if an FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence, the registration is mandatory and the veracity of the allegations is a matter for investigation. Furthermore, the power to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the BNSS is an enabling provision and is not a condition precedent to the registration of an FIR.
Result: Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued no ingredients of extortion or criminal intimidation; complainant alleged threats and demand for money. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. WhatsApp messages prima facie disclose cognizable offences; investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. FIR disclosing prima facie cognizable offence warrants investigation; quashing at inception is an exception. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 )
5. Criminal petition dismissed; FIR not quashed as allegations prima facie disclose cognizable offences. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. Whether an FIR can be quashed when allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence?
No, quashing at threshold is not permissible; investigation must proceed unless allegations do not constitute any offence. (Para 12 , 14 , 18 )
7. Is conduct of preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS mandatory before registering an FIR?
No, it is discretionary and enabling; non-exercise does not render FIR registration illegal or ground for quashing. (Para 16 , 17 )
8. Do WhatsApp messages demanding money for withdrawing a PIL constitute extortion under Section 308 BNS?
Yes, such allegations coupled with threats prima facie attract the ingredients of extortion and criminal intimidation. (Para 9 , 10 , 14 )
ORDER :
J. Sreenivas Rao, J.
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.108 of 2026 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 308(3) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNS’).
2. Brief facts of the case:
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 05.02.202 before the Station House Officer, Banjara Hills Police Station, stating that he is in occupation of property bearing Municipal No. 8-2-686/22 admeasuring about 1000 square yards at NBT Nagar, Banjara Hills, Road No.12, Hyderabad, since 1992, while his sister, Mrs. Kavitha Rao, is in occupation of the adjoining property bearing Municipal No. 8-2-686/21 admeasuring about 425 square yards. Conveyance Deeds bearing Document Nos. 3942 of 2023 and 3941 of 2023, both dated 12.06.2023, were executed in their favour. The petitioner, who has no right, title, or interest in the said properties, filed W.P. (PIL) No. 26 of 2024 before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, challenging the regularization and execution of the said conveyance deeds on the ground that the Government had allegedly charged lower rates, causing loss to the exchequer. After the Hon’ble High Court ordered notices on 23.07.2024, the petitioner allegedly contacted him through multiple WhatsApp calls and messages, forwarded newspaper clippings relating to the PIL, and indicated that he would withdraw the case if paid a substantial amount. When the same was informed to his younger brother, Mr. K. Viplav Kumar, the latter contacted the petitioner, who allegedly threatened to file further writ petitions if not “handled smoothly” and directed him to speak with one Mr. Anvesh Reddy, who is his cousin. Mr. Anvesh Reddy allegedly conveyed a demand of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- in cash for withdrawal of the PIL and issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC). The WhatsApp messages further indicated willingness to withdraw the case upon payment of money. The petitioner is a habitual litigant who has filed multiple PILs in the past, which were dismissed or termed speculative in nature, and that his actions, in conspiracy with Mr. Anvesh Reddy, constitute extortion and misuse of the judicial process. Accordingly, he seeks investigation into their antecedents and appropriate legal action for offences relating to extortion, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy under the relevant provisions of law basing upon the said complaint, Crime No.108 iof 2026 is registered for the offences under Sections 308(3) and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Heard Mr. E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel representing Mr. M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sripada Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 308(3) and 351(2) of the BNS are not attracted against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed WP (PIL) No.26 of 2024 challenging G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 23.05.2023 relating to land regularisation, and the matter was substantially heard and pending at a crucial stage. Respondent No.2 without filing any reply in the said PIL, filed the present complaint with a mala fide intention to harass and intimidate the petitioner.
4.2. He further submitted that there are no specific allegations in the complaint regarding direct demand of Rs.3 Crores by the petitioner and the alleged demand is only based on hearsay attributed to a third party. Further, there is no material showing deli
