HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5756 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor and Sri M. Vijayakanth, learned counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.252 of 2025 pending on the file of P.S. Subedari, Warangal District. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein/sole accused are punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(4) and 352 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

3. As per the said complaint, dated 29.03.2024, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are that on observing that the husband of the 2^nd respondent was under fear, on her enquiry, he stated that the petitioner herein i.e. MLA of Huzurabad Assembly Constituency earlier threatened him and extorted an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs. He further stated that again on 18.4.2025, the petitioner called from his phone No. 9949219999 to his phone No. 9959513366 and stated that if he wants to run granite quarry in the said constituency, he has to immediately pay the petitioner Rs. 50 Lakhs and threatened him that if he defaulted in paying the money, the petitioner would kill their family members. Out of fear, the petitioner being MLA, since her husband’s health is deteriorating day by day and there being threat to their lives, the 2^nd respondent requested the police to take action against the petitioner for abusing her husband in filthy language, and threatening with dire consequences.

4. Basing on the said complaint dated 21.04.2025 lodged by the

2^nd respondent, the Police, Subedar Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.252 of 2024 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

5. Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime on the following grounds:-

i. There is delay of 3½ days from 18.04.2025 in lodging the complaint.

ii. According to the statement of 2^nd respondent and victim, the 1^st incident took place on 25.10.2023. Even then, they have not lodged any complaint with police. Thus, there is delay of 1 ½ year in lodging the said complaint.

iii. As per the complaint dated 21.04.2025, 2^nd respondent’s husband is the victim and he has to lodge a complaint and instead of her husband, she lodged the complaint.

iv. The contents of the complaint dated 21.04.2025 and statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein.

v. To attract the offences under Section 308 of BNS, there should be three ingredients i.e. fear, inducement and delivery of property. In the present case, the same are lacking.

vi. 2^nd respondent lodged the said complaint basing on hearsay evidence.

vii. The petitioner was implicated in the said crime falsely due to political rivalry.

viii. The petitioner is sitting MLA from BRS party which is conducting Silver Jubilee celebrations at the relevant point of time and the petitioner is actively participating in making success the said celebrations. To keep the petitioner away from the same, due to political rivalry at the instance of 2^nd respondent, the Police have implicated the petitioner in the said case falsely.

ix. There is no disturbance to the public peace.

x. Without conducting preliminary enquiry, the police have registered the said FIR which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.

xi. He has also placed reliance on the judgments in Mohammad Wajid vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC Online SC 951, Issac Isanga Musumba vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 15 SCC 357, Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat, 2025 Law Suit (SC) 427 and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre

6. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesai