Allowed

M. Rathnamala v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Nov 2025CRLP/3457/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a Criminal Petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that continued criminal proceedings against nine accused teachers were a clear abuse of the process of the law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed. Proceedings in Crime No.361 of 2021 against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 9 quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law.

M. Rathnamala Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I^3303l

¶2

THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE THIRD^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEJ SREENIVASRAO}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIO^{N NO: 3457 OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 M. Rathnamala,^{D/o. Bal Reddy,Aged 55 years, OccGovtTeacher' H'no8-} S-f +/lA, ftfrlifarluna^{Colony,Road"no4, Oid Bowenpally' Secunderabad-'1 1}

¶9

2 Jakki Reddy^{Prashanthi, D/o. VenkataReddy, Aged 45 YearsOcc Govt'} i!lrir-.,"r, ni"^{H.no.is s+s,New [\4aruthinaglr, Kbthapet'Hvderabad- 500} 060

¶10

3 Vasuri Prameela Devt,^{D/o. Vasuri Alluraiah, Aged48 Years' Occ' Govt} i"r.n"i Rlo. H no^{S S4164, Patelguda,KrishnaReddypetSangaReddy} Drstrict - 502 319

¶11

4 G. Sree Latha,^{D/o. G.Y. Ramaiah, Aged 55 Years,Occ' GovtTeacher'R/o} Frot nos02. b-roik no6^{oV. ro*nstiip.Sudhanagar Colony, old Safilguda,} R.K Puram, Hyderabad^{- 500 056}

¶12

5 M. Usha Kiran.^{D/oM. Ram Reddy,Aged 45 Years, Occ'Govt'Teacher'R/o'} ii no-S-e-z89lA,^{Phase-1,VijayapLri bolony,Vansathalipuram-Hyderabad-} 500 070

¶13

6 P tvlaniusha Ranr. D/o. P. Balram^{Aqed 50 Years,Occ'Govt Teacher'R/o} iiri';ii)iz ilgrniohi^{Ap-rtments" Rasoolpura, PohceLrne, Besumpet} Secunderabad^{- 500 003}

¶14

7 B. Vi;aya Bharathr^{Bai, D/o B Hari Singh, Aged 51 Years Occ Govt} i.""i,L'r- R/o. Villa^{no. 16, GLR ParkvieivEnilave, BehindBIg Bazar'} Kompally, Hyderabad^{-500 100}

¶15

8 G. Radhika, D/o.^{G. Nagaratnam,Aged 57 Years, Occ Govt' Teacher'R/o'} Flri ;;1j0)-omeg,^{a'ioc[, RalapisnpaAtria, Kokapet R R District - 500} 075

¶16

G Viiava Laxmi. D/o. G.^{Bhadranna, Aged49 Years, Occ Govt'Teacher'} aio dio l-iqz,^{Vinayakanagar Colony, Medchal501401}

¶17

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{NO'1 TO 9}

¶18

AND

¶19

l-he state of felangana, through Public^{Prosecutor,Hlg l' cotlrt for the state} cf Telangana. Hyderabad

¶20

M. Kavitha C/o not known to^{Petitioner,Aged. [/lajor,O c L:ovt. Teacher,} ZPFIS (Girls). Ir,4edchal R/o.^{H no.8-361/8t/ N Reddyl''ir;ar,Near Naik} School, Chinlal, Quthbullapur.^{Hyderabad - 500 055}

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition undr-.r Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C prayingthat Ithe ctrcumstances} stated in the lVlemc,randum of Grounds^{of criminalPetitior. ihe Hrgh courtmay} be pleased to QUI\SH the FIR^{No 361 of 2021 of P S . Iledchal, Cyberabad} Commissionerate. dated O3lO4t2O21, Sec^{323 lPC, 3(i)(l)(} )^{3(i)(l)(s) SC ST} POA Act, 201 5 the same is untenable^{either on facts or und:law}

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶24

Petition unde:r Section 482 of Cr.P^{C praying that rr the circumstances} stated in the Memc)randum of Grounds^{of CriminalPetittorrlhe High Courtmay} be pleased to Stay all further^{proceedingspursuant to Fl; No 361 of 2021 of} P.S., Medchal, Cyberabad^{C omm tsstonerate, dated 03.04 2t,.)21,under Sec323} lPC, 3(i)(l)(r), 3(i)( )(s) SC ST^{POA Act.2O 15 includinlappearanceof the} Petitioners / Accused no.1 to 9^pendrng disposal^{of the rnarn .lrinrinalPetition}

¶25

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶26

BETWEEN

¶27

M. Kavitha, Wo tr/. Krupananda^{Rao, Aged About49 Years,Occ. Govt.} Teacher, ZPHS^(13irls), Ir/edchal R/o^{H no 8 361/8,lr,4 N Recdy Nagar, NearNaik} School, Chintal,^{()uthbullapur,Hyderabad- 500 055}

¶28

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT^NO.2

¶29

AND

¶30

1 M. Rathnamala, D/o. Bal Reddy, Aged 55^{years,Occ.(l rvt Teacher, H.no.8-} 5-147lB,lVlallit<arjuna Colony,^{Roadno 4, Old BowenpallySecunderabad-11}

¶31

2 Jakki Reddy l)rashanthi,^{D/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged} '^{i' Years, Occ Govt.} Teacher, Rlo. H no.'1^{-5-949, New Maruthinagar,Kothap.' t, Hyderabad - 500} 060.

¶32

Vasuri Prameela Devi,^D/o Vasuri Alluraiah, Aged 48 Years, Occ.^Govt. Teacher, R/o. H.no.5-94164, Patelguda, Krishna Red,i,pet, Sanga^Reddy District - 502 31 9

¶33

G. Sree Latha D/o G.Y. Ramaiah,^{Aged55 Years,Occ. liovt} Teacher, R/o. Plot no.302, Block no.6, D V Township.^{Sudhanagar Cclcny} Old Safilguda, R.K Puram, Hyderabad^- 500 056

¶34

M Usha Kiran, D/o^{M RamReddy,Aged45 Years,Occ Govt TeacherR/o} - H no.s-s 7e9/A, Phase-|, Vijayapuii C5tony, Vansathalipure-Hyderabad - 500 070

¶35

P. Nlaniusha Rani, D/o.^{P. Balram, Aged50 Years,Occ' Govt Teacher'R/o'} - fta,t i6.ZOZ, Jaganidhi Apartments, Rasoolpura, Police Line, Begumpet Secunderabad - 500⁰⁰³

¶36

B. Vpya Bharathi Bai, D/o. B^{Hari Singh,4ged51 Years,Occ Govt} Teacnei, R/o. Villa no.16,^{GLRParkviewEnclave, Behind Big Bazar} Kompally, Hyderabad^{-500 100}

¶37

G. Radhika. D/o. G. Nagaratnam,^{Aged 57 Years, Occ.GovtTeacher,R/o} flat no 1302 Omega B-lock,^{RajapushpaAtria, Kokapet,R R District - 500} 075.

¶38

G. Vijaya Laxmr, D/o G^{Bhadranna, Aged 49.Y-ears, Occ Govt'Teacher'} Rto. H io.l -242, Vinayakanagar^{Colony, tvledchal501401.}

¶39

...RESPONDENTS/^PETITIONERS

¶40

The State of Telangana, through^{Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State} of Telangana TS

¶41

.RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶42

Petition under section^{482 of Cr.P.C prayingthat in the clrcumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition, the Highcourt may} be pleased To vacate^{the interim order dtd: 281412021granted in I A No i/202'1} in irl.p. NO.3437t2O21 and^{dismrssthe quash petition CrlP No.3457/2021with} COSTS

¶43

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2021

¶44

BETWEEN

¶45

The State of Telangana, through^{PublicProsecutor,High Court for the State of} Telangana, Hyderabad

¶46

..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶47

AND

¶48

1 tvl, Rathnamala, D/o Bal Reddy,^{Aged 55 years, Occ. Govt Teacher, H no-B-} 5-1aiE, Mallirariuna^{Colony,Rbad-no4, oid Bowenpally' Secunderabad-11}

¶49

2 Jakki Reddy Prashanthi,^{D/o. Venkata Reddy, Aged 45 Years,Occ GovL} iui.n"r, Rio H no t-s-g49,^{New tt/aruthinagir'Kbthapet, Hyderabad- 500} 060.

¶50

-r--^*.ffi92 ,^:,-!#r,

¶51

Vasuri Pram,:ela Devi, D/o.^{Vasuri Alluraiah,Aged} 4 iJ Years, Occ Govt Teacher, R/o H.no.5-94164,^{Patelguda.Krishna Rer} i lypet Sanga Reddy District - 502 319

¶52

G. Sree Lath,t, D/o. G.Y^{Ramaiah, Aged 55 Years' Ocr Govt' Teacher, R/o'} PIot no.302. Slock no.6,^{D V. Townsh-rp. Sudhanagar} -^{>lony, OId Safilguda,} R.K.Puram, Flyderabad - 500⁰⁵⁶

¶53

M. Usha Kirarr, Dio^IV. Ram^{Reddy,Aged 45 Years' Ot:t' Govt TeacherRlo.} H. no.5-3-789,'4, Phase-1, Vilayapu-ri^{Colony.Vansathalp.rre-Hyderabad - 500} 070

¶54

P. il/anjusha Rani,^D/o. P^{Balram, Aged 50 Years,Occ Govt. Teacher, R/o} Flal n6.202. Jaganidhi^{Apartments. Rasoolpura. Pclr;eLine Begumpet'} Secunderaba I - 500 003

¶55

B Vijaya Bharathi^Bai, D/o B^{Harr Singh Aged11 Years,Occ.Govt} Teache'r, R/o. Villa^{no. .16,} GLR^{ParkviewEnclave Behind Big Bazar,} Kompally, Hyrlerabad -500¹⁰⁰

¶56

G Radhika, t)/o G. Nagaratnam,^{Aged 57 Years.Ocr; Govt Teacher,R/o} Flat no.1302, Omega Block,^{Ralapushpa Atria' Kokalr"t'R.R District - 500} 075.

¶57

G Vijaya Laxmi, D/o. G.^{Bhadranna,Aged 49 Y-ears.)cc. Govt.Teacher'} R/o. H.no 1-2.72 Yinayakanagar Colony.^{tVledchal501 4(|}

¶58

..RESP()I{DENTS/ACCUSED

¶59

'10.M. Kavitha, Dio. not known to Petitioner, Aged lVlalor, Ccc Govt. Teacher' ZPHS (Girls), Medchal R/o^{H no} S^{361i8, MN Reddy N:'rar.Near Naik} School, Chintitl, Quthbullapur,^{Hyderabad - 500 055}

¶60

RESPON D : l.lT/COMPLAINANT

¶61

(R-'10 is not necessary^party)

¶62

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P^{C prayingthat i'the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Groundsof Criminal Petitron,he High Court may} be pleased To vaca:e the^{stay in lA No.1/2021in Crl.P345t t2021 on the file of} Hon'ble High Court^{<1t.281412021}

¶63

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing :lr3 [/]emorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumr:rrtsof Sri K BUCHI} BABU ,Advocate fc,r the^{Petitioner andl,4 rtvl.Vivekanan l} "^{ReddyAssistant} Public Prosecutor on behalf of the^{RespondentNo1.and Sr /ohd Shahabuddin} Advocate for the Re:;pondent No2.

¶64

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶65

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3457 of 2021

¶66

ORDER

¶67

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the

¶68

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.36l of 2021 on the file of the Medchal Police Station, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC') and Sections 3(iXlX$ and 3(iXlXs) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrooities) Amendrnent Act, 201 5 (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act')

¶69

The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 03.04.2021, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that she^is working asa Secondary Grade Bioscience Teacher at ZPHS (Girts), Medchal. She rnentioned that earlier, while proceeding in school, her leg accidentally touched Teacher Rathnamala. Following this, Teachers Rathnamala and Prashanthi allegedly abused her in the name of caste and attacked^her by throwing chairs. Another Teacher, Prameela, also supported them. Furthermore, the complainant stated that Rathnamala, Prashanthi, Prameela, along with Srilatha, Usha Kiran, Manjusha,

¶70

¶71

Vijayabarathi, Radhika, and Vijayalakshmi, had 1.een mentally harassing her. Hence, the prcscnt crime was register,:

¶72

When the matter was taken up fbr ctr r^. ideration on 13.10.2025, there was no representation on behal I .,f respondent No.2, either in physical mode or virtual modc [o eive one opportunity, the matter was posted to 16.10.2025 urr jr.:r the caption 'fbr orders'. On 1'1 .10.2025 also, there was no rcl-r (..serltation on behalf of respondent No.2. However, to give one m( ,^-, opportunity, the matter was posted to 23.10.2025. On 23.10.2(ll:j also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners (,. rcspondent No.2, either in the morning or aftemoon session, rr physical or virtual mode. To give final opportunity to the partic.,. the matter was posted to 03.1 1.2025. Even today, there is no rep r.,serrtation on behatf of respondent No.2, either in physical or i ftual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed ri i r tlre matter on ments.

¶73

Heard lvlr.Chakradhar Reddy, learned counscl -epresenting Mr.K.Buchi Babu, learned counsel for petrtroners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, leamed Assistant Public I,r'rsecutor for

respondent No. I

)

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners havc not committed any offence and respondent No.2 has falsely implicated them in the present crime on the ground that petitioner No.6, who is the Head Master ol ZPHS (Cirls), Medchal, along with other teachers, had lodged complaint against respondent No.2 on 26.03.2021, before the District Educational Officer, Medchat. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint r,vith lalse allegations, implicating the petitioners for olfences punishable under the provisions ol SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, though the petitioners never abused respondent No.2 in the name of her caste. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the^{petitioners.He} further submitted that petitioner Nos. i to 5 and 7 to 9 are teachers, who have been discharging their duties to the utrnost satislaction of the students and higher officials, and there are no complaints against them. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings^against the petitioners is a clear abuse ofthe process of law

¶79

Per contra, the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations against^{the petitioners} that they abused respondent^{No.2 in the nameof her caste.Whether}

¶80

¶81

the petition:rs have committed the offence or r:r rt has to be revealed dr"ring the course of invcstigation. Irerelbre, thc pctitioners are not entitled to seek quashment ol tl t. proceedings, and the ltetition is liable to be dismissed

¶82

'7. Havinl3 considered the rival submissions rrrade by the respective p;rrties and after perusal of the materii I available on reoord it rr:veals that petitioner Nos. I to 5 au I 7 to 9 are Government^'feachers, and petitioner No.6 is the r:adrnaster of ZPHS (Cirls), Medchal. The respondent No.2lde-fac, t, complainant is also u,orking as a Government Teacher in the sa tl school. The record furthr:r discloses that petitioner No.6, alorr.: u,ith other teachers, lodged complaint against respondent '.o-2/de-fac to complainant refore the District Educational OIficer Mcclchal, on 26.03.2021, alleging that respondent No.2 was obr;rrucring thcir official duties, interfering in administrative mattcr., provoking students to write unnecessary remarks against the pr: rtioners, and degrading as well as insulting them. The said c,t rplaint was received by the District Educational Officer on27.03.21121

¶83

The specific case of the petitioners is tha duc to the complaint lodged by petitioner No.6 along with trt'rer teachers

¶84

¶85

¶86

before the District Educational Officer,^{rcspondent No.2, with an} oblique motive, has filed the present complaint as a counterblast, falsely implicating them for the olfences under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act

¶87

Upon perusal of the complaint, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the^petitioners to attract^{the ingredients} ofatleged offences.

¶88

I0. ln Ramesh Chandra ltaislrya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and anothert , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for an^offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, the^alleged insult must be caste-specific, intentional, and^made in a^place within public view. Since the alleged abuse occured^{in a private} setting without reference to caste or^{publicpresence, the essential} ingredients of the offence were missing. Finding no^credible evidence even for the IPC charges under Sections 323^{aod 504,the} Court quashed the criminal^{proceedingsas} an abuse^{of process.}

¶89

I l. ln Sandhya Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and anothei, the Allahabad High Court observed that for an offence under^the

¶90

'^{(2023) t7 scc 6t5}

¶91

'^{2025SCC Onl-ineAll l5l2}

¶92

¶93

SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult r:rr.rst be castespecific, intentional, and made in a place within publ .: vieri,. Since the alleged caste- based abuses occurred inside I re accused's house, in the presence of the complainant's wife ancl lrrother-in-law w'ho could not be treated as members of the publi .: the essential ingredient of "public view" was missing. The Court rr so found that the dispute altpeared to arise lrom institutional mant lrcment issues rathcr than caste animosity. Accordingly, it uashed the proceedings rnder Sections 3(l)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) , 1'thc SC/S'| Act against ttre applicant while allowing the triat to p r oceed lor the remaining IP(l offences.

¶94

ln Kc,.ruppudayar v. State Rnp. by the Depu4, Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy and otherst, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for an offence r r fall withrn Sections 3(l)(r) or 3(l)(s) ol the SC/ST (POA) Arr. i989, rhe alleged act must occur at a place "within public vievz^', meaning a place where rnembers of the public are capable o1' v, itnessing or hearing the a leged abuse. Where the incident occurs within the

¶95

r 2015 scc online .ic 215

¶96

¶97

four walls of an offence or other^{privatespacewithout public} presence, the essential ingredients of^{"publicview" is not satisfied.}

¶98

1 \

¶99

ln the present case, the complainant,^{a teacher, has alleged} that her fellow teachers and the^{principal abused her by referringto} her caste within the^principal's office^{whereno membersof the} public were present at the time. Applying the ratio of Karuppudayar's case^(supra), such^{a placecannot be regardedas} being^"within public view",^{and prima} facie^{the ingredientsof the} alleged offences are not attracted

¶100

For the foregoing reasons as^{well as the principles laid down} by the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in the judgrnentscited supra, this} Court is of the considered^{view that continuationofproceedingsin} Crime No.36l of 2021,^{on the file of the Medchal Potice Station,} Cyberabad, against the^{petitioners/accused Nos.l to 9, is a clear} abuse of the process of law^and it^{is a fit case to invokethe} jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.^{to quash} the proceedings against the^petitroners.

¶101

In the result, the criminal^{petition is allowed.The} proceedings in Crime No.36l of^{2021 on the file of the Medchal}

¶102

¶103

Police Station. Cyberabad, against the petitioners/ac :.rsed Nos. 1 to

¶104

are hcreby quashed

¶105

I'endirg r.niscellaneous applications, if an', shall stand

¶106

closed.

¶107

SD/. I,.C. SULEKHA DEVI ASI;ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The XXll Add tional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medcha . .)yberabad

¶113

The Statron House Officer, Police station lr/edchal , Cytrt;rabad

¶114

Two CC to thr> PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for :he State of Telangana, H.,derabad[OUT]

¶115

4 One CC to Slll K BUCHT BABU Advocate [OpUC]

¶116

5 One CC to SItl tvlohd Shahabuddin Advocate for R-2 ( )pUCl

¶117

¶118

Two CD Copries

AG/SA

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311112025

. -::-:r-ja_-..
.t : , ;,t] .,.: .-'-.-\ i^....
,;r.',.
...- .<br>li -: -7t
il -.:
lr.jl 2U5 i,;
. '.'. :.i-,;
-1, ,'.' - .i_'
.: ' l_.,- :..'. :' ": " '.'.,7t '..'1 ',

ORDER

CRLP.No.34li7 o12021

CRLP IS ALLOWED

M. Rathnamala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rathnamala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Tirumala Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and another

Yellavula Mohan Rao Vs Yellavula Seethamma

Peddireddy Gangadhara Rao, Vs State of andhra Pradesh

Pathri Vijayalaxmi and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Smt. Alka Upadhyay Sharma Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Nagur Shareef Vs State of Telangana