HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11372 OF 2024

ORDER

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 06.04.2024 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.51 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, Nakrekal Police Station, have registered a case in Cr.No.259 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 Nakrekal. 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 2.30 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 is a Member of SC/ST community and therefore, he requested the Sub Inspector of Police, Nakrekal Police Station, to take action against the petitioner herein.

4. On receipt of the said complaint, the Police, Nakrekal, 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, Palle vijay, eye witness, who videographed speech of accused in his cell phone and transferred the same in pen drive and handed over to L.W.1, Daida Paramesham, Yathakula Kiran as L.Ws.3 and 4, the victim Chirumarthi Lingaiah as L.W.5, Yellavula Venkateshwrlu who photographed and videographed entire statements of witnesses, as L.W.6, Palasa Saidulu and Gandamalla Ramaswamy, the panch witness to seizure of pen drive as L.Ws.7 and 8, Janapati Venkatesh and Chougoni Shankaraiah, the panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch, as L.Ws.9 and 10, Tahsildar, Narkatpally, who issued caste certificate of the victim as L.W.11 and Tahsildar, Nakrekal, who issued caste certificate of the petitioner/accused, as L.W.12. L.W.13 is the Investigating Officer who registered the crime and L.W.14 is also an Investigating Officer. 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 06.04.2024, 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 afor