Allowed

Kesarla Nagaraju and 5 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC7 Nov 2022CRLP/3726/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings against six petitioners accused of posting objectionable content on social media due to political rivalry. The court held that the Cyber Lab report showed inability to retrieve evidence, making it desirable to quash the case filed under IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners in C.C. No. 707 of 2021 on file of 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, Khammam, are hereby quashed.

Kesarla Nagaraju and 5 others Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3726 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kesarla Nagaraju, S/o. Ramu, aged About 27 years, Padmasali, Occ. Priavte Job, R/o. Medar Bazaar, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶8

Sk.Yakub Pasha, S/o. Aszal Miya, aged About 25 years, Dudekula, Occ. Private Job, R/o. H. No. 5-3-193, Kasaiah Colony, Pakabanda Bazaar, Khammam, Khammam Diskict.

¶9

Siliveru Saivarun, S/o. Late Bapan Rao, Aged about 21^yea$, Kummari, Occ. Student, R/o. Kasaiah Colony, Pakabanda Bazaar, Khammam, Khammam District

¶10

Kamatam Ajay, S/o Srinivasu, aged About 19^years, Yadav, Occ. Student, R/o. Kasaiah Colony, Pakabanda Bazaar, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶11

Darna Rajesh, S/o. Nagaraju, aged About 20^years, Padmasali, Occ. Student, R/o. Kasaiah Colony, Pakabanda Bazaar, Khammam, Khammam District.

¶12

Sk. Zaheer, S/o. Saidulu, aged about 20^years, Padmasali,^{Occ. Student,R/o.} Kasaiah Colony, Pakabanda Bazaar, Khammam District.

¶13

...Petitioners/Accused

¶14

AND

¶15

I The State of Telangana, through Khammam^{I Town Police Station,Khammam} District, represented by^{PubliCProsecutor,HighCourt for the State of} Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶16

...Respondent

¶17

2 Korlaoati Naqaraiu, S/o.^{Late Ramesh,Aged about38 years,Mala, Occ.} Painting Wo&., R7o. H.No.^{5-3-39'1, Shanthinagar, PakabandaBazar,} Khammam, Khammam Distr;ct.

¶18

.Defacto complainant

¶19

Petition under Section tB2 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circuns:anc:es stated in the Memorandum of irounds of Criminal Petition, the Higr Court may be pleased to call for the^'ecords in connection with in CC No. 7C'i of 2021 dated 05.03.2021 on the fil, of I Additional Judicial Magislrate r:f First Class at Khammam and quash lre same.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

Petition uncer € ection 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in t rc ci-cumstances stated in the Memoran^jum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. th: {igh Court may be pleased to stay o all further proceedings in CC No. 7{it of 2021 daled 05.03.2021 on the file rf I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Cla;s, at Khammam.

¶22

This Petition co ning on for hearing, upon perusing the l\Ierrorandum of Grounds of Criminal P,,tition and upon hearing the arguments^,rf Sri CH. Venkat Raman, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Publir: Prosecutor on behalf of the Resoonc lnt No.1 and of Sri- M. Srinivasa Rao, ldvocate for the Respondent No.2

¶23

The Court made the fc lowing: ORDER

¶24

HONBLD DT" ,JUSTICE CHILI.AKUR SUITIAI,ATHA

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3726 of 2021

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1-State as well as the learned counsel representing respondent No.2.

¶28

Seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.7O7 of 2O2l on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicia-I Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, the present Criminal Petition is filed-

¶29

karned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offences much iess the offences punishable under Sections 120-8, 153(A), 29O,294(b) and 504 IPC. l,earned counsel states that due to political rivalry and a trivial issue, a false case is foisted against the petitioners and even the contents of the charge sheet does not disclose collection of any incriminating material against the petitioners and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶30

I^I

¶31

¶32

Dr.CSL, J CttPN , 1i726 of²⁰²¹

¶33

On tt e other hand, the submission tl learned Additional 'ublic Prosecutor is that in case, tho said Ca-lendar C Lse is put on trial, relevant materia.l rrLay be collecterl.

¶34

Learn d counsel appearing for rcspor: d,:nt No.2 endorses t re submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. He states that due to political. rir airy and a trivinl issur complaint was given to Policr:.

¶35

The c rse facts, as could be perceived tr:ough the content.s o1 the charge sheet, are that resporrciient- No.2defacto cor plainant is a sympathizer of 'I.R.S t;ar1y. One Kamart.hap -r Murali was elected as Corporet.r:,r^'-o 16th Division, l.hammam, and he belongs to I'IfS party. During his tenure, he had done several develrlpme'nts. In view of Sar kranti festival, on 13.01.2021 , one BJF' leader by narne I r-tdra Pradeep conducted drarving Jr rogra-mme on thr: r( ad of Shanthinagar of Khrrmmirrn^jn 16tt division. i r the closing programme, the sirirl I)radeep commente I about the developments dorr(: by the Corporator ald also stated that in the forth coming municipal elections if he is elected, he woulc! dr) many

¶36

¶37

Dr,CSL, J CrlPNo.3726 of 2o91

¶38

developments. On that, L-W-4-Suresh posted in his face book account stating that on the cement road laid by their Corporator, the drawing competitions were held and therefore, the development might be seen. On that, all the accused colluded with each other, criminally conspired and posted objectionable material on the face book account of respondent No.2 and others through their mobile phones.

¶39

7 . In the charge sheet, it is clearly mentioned that the mobile phones were seized and were-forwarded to Cyber Lab, Khammam, for examination, but the Analyst opined that the objectionable content of face book posts could not be retrieved due to face book limitation.

¶40

karned counsel for the petitioners states that as no incriminating material could be collected by the investigating agency, the proceedings though continued would not yield any fruitful result in favour of the prosecution.

¶41

By the contents of the charge sheet, it is clear that the whole basis for the case is the content that was posted in the face book accounts. Also, it is clear that

¶42

¶43

Dr,(:S.1., J CrtPNo.3^7.2ti of 2O21

¶44

nothing o bjec ionable could be retrieved fi'orn tl.e lace book account . lt is not the case of the prosecu:',,:)n that the abuse w? s made through words or deeds r,t-trerwise than posting rn the respective face book accoun -s, Ir. the light of the re )ort of the Analyst, as rightly subrrit-ed, the prosecuting agency would not be in a posi tion to establish the case even if the case is put on trial. Neither the learned ,.dditional Public Prosecutor nor thc ieeLrned counsel app< aring for respondent No.2 has stat,:C that by the oral evic ence that would be producecl, the r:asr: can be establisl ed before the Court of law ap:rinst the petitioners. fherefore, this Court is of the ri-'vr t:rat it would be wl olly undesirable to continue the p:ocer:dings against the petitioners as the same would no - vield any frr.ritful resr 1t in favour of the prosecution. [[r:nc<:, this Court cons: lers it desirable to quash the pro< tr:dirfgs as prayed for.

¶45

Resui antly, this Criminal Petition is rrllow,ed. The proceecling ; that are pending against the pettttc,ners, who are arraye( as accused Nos. l to 6 in C.C.No."O7 ctf 2O2l on the Iile ri the Court of I Additional Judicia lvlallistrate of First- Cl: ss, Kharnmarn, are hereby quastr<:ri

¶46

5 DT.CSL' J C/1PNo.3726^{of 2O2l}

¶47

As^{a sequel,} Pending^{miscellaneous aPPlications, if} any, shall^{stand closed'}

¶48

¶49

SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// U{r,i"-\ r -r <sup>.r z_ SECTION OFPICEh

¶50

To,

¶51

The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam. 2. The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Khammam. 3. Two CCs to the Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT].

¶52

One CC to SRl. CH. Venkat Raman, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRl. M. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies

Pw(-

HIGH COUFIT

DR. CSL, J

DATED:O71111:2022

ORDER

CRLP.No.3720 ot 2O2

r'
+
I//(
I F
I )'
\rt$tt
',y,,/

¶60

CRIMINAL PETITION S Ai.LOWED

¶61

t^{P.c</sup> 1\ -v*}

Kesarla Nagaraju and 5 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesarla Nagaraju and 5 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toodi Bharat Ratna Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Sri Raavi Venkata Durga Prasad , Raavi Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Puli Ashok Kumar Vs Katakam Rajalingu and 3 others

Deepak Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

D. Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Kistangari Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana