HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4216 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner –

accused, Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the State appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.254 of 2025 of L.B.

Nagar Police Station.

3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid crime.

The offences alleged against him are under Section - 3 (2) (va), 3 (1) (w) (ii) and 3 (r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section - 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

4. On the complaint of respondent No.2, dated 17.03.2025, L.B.

Nagar Police has registered the aforesaid crime against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

5. As per the complaint, dated 17.03.2025 of respondent No.2, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are as follows:

i) On 17.03.2025, the petitioner herein being sitting MLA of L.B. Nagar Assembly Constituency delivered abusive words against respondent No.2 before the Media stating that ‘Honeymoon is running between him and Mr. Madhuyashki, Campaign Committee Chairman & L.B. Nagar Incharge”, even after knowing that she belongs to Lambada Caste (ST) and thereby insulted her modesty which hurts her feelings and her family members.

ii) He also degraded her among the people, insulted her and her family members through media.

iii) Earlier also, the petitioner insulted her in the name of her caste.

6. To quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime, the petitioner filed the present petition on the following grounds:

i) He is sitting MLA of L.B. Nagar Assembly Constituency; ii) Respondent No.2 is the present Corporator of the GHMC;

iii) The petitioner belongs to BRS Party, whereas respondent No.2 belongs to BJP. Thus, there is political rivalry between them;

iv) Due to the said political rivalry, respondent No.2 implicated the petitioner in the subject crime;

v) On receipt of the complaint dated 17.03.2025, the Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar Police Station, without conducting preliminary enquiry registered the subject crime. Therefore, the same is in violation of the procedure laid down under BNSS and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 1. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678 vi) The allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless; and vii) Punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner is below seven (07) years. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has to follow the procedure laid down under Section - 35 (3) of the BNSS.

7. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that investigation is pending in the subject crime. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of three (03) witnesses i.e., respondent No.2 as LW.1, Mr. Vanguri Satish Yadav, Raj News Reporter, as LW.2 and Mr. Sala Sunil Kumar, R-TV Electronic Media Reporter, as LW.3. There are serious allegations against the petitioner herein. However, the Investigating Officer will conduct investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under BNSS.

8. Whereas, Mr. Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would submit that that on 17.03.2025, the petitioner had conducted press meet near DCP Office at L.B. Nagar in front of public and openly insulted respondent No.2. The petitioner insulted respondent No.2 in the above manner which hurts her feelings and her family members. He has degraded respondent No.2 among the people. She is present Corporator and public representative. Therefore, scuttling the investigation at the threshold is not proper.

9. Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petit