IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 28.11.2025 Between:

Rudrabatla Santhosh Kumar and 12 others … Petitioners/Accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 13 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.99 of 2025 on the file of Neelwai Police Station, Ramagundam, registered for the offences under Sections 108 read with 3(5) of BNS.

2. Heard Sri V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. V. Sanjana, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, Sri Prabhakar Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K. Sanjeev, learned counsel on record for the respondent No.2 on record and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein have abetted the suicide of the victim by harassing him through a false complaint filed against him, alleging that he has outraged the modesty of a woman. Thus, unbearable with the humiliation, the victim alleged to have committed suicide.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were celebrating Bathukamma festival and while they were in festive mood, the victim alleged to have entered there with few others and have created galata and has pulled the hand of accused No.11-petitioner No.11 herein, and outraged her modesty. Thus, accused No.11 lodged a complaint on 03.10.2025 for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC & ST Act’) and Sections 76, 77 and 351(2) of BNS against the victim. He contends that the present case is lodged on 10.10.2025 as a counter blast to the said complaint and that the petitioners herein are no way responsible for the suicide of the victim. He further submitted that on the face of it, the complaint is not sustainable as mere registration of a crime against an individual would not amount to abetment to provoke the victim for committing the suicide. The ingredients of the abetment do not get attracted even as per the averments made in the complaint. He further submitted that the alleged suicide note does not constitute the offence of abetment and does not spell out any harassment made by the petitioners instigating the victim to commit suicide. He further submitted that accused No.11 being a lady belonging to Mannervarlu community was treated in an obscene manner by the deceased victim and thus, she had to lodge a complaint. But, that does not mean to say that the de facto complainant can implicate all these petitioners with an allegation of abetting the suicide of the victim. He further submitted that the petitioners herein are 13 persons altogether and it is beyond the scope of imagination that all the 13 persons would go and instigate the victim to die. He further submitted that the police have not followed the procedure laid down under BNSS and have not conducted any preliminary enquiry in this case and that the police have utterly violated the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 AIR 604 and thus, the proceedings against the petitioners, among whom most of them are women, have to be quashed. He relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, Ayyub & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SINSC 168, and the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Rajesh @ Raja Yadav v. State of M.P., 2016 SCC OnLine MP 9892 and the High Court of Delhi in Atul Kumar v.

State of NCT Delhi and another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4107

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the FIR in itself is not an epitome and that the suicide note reveals the name