Allowed

Y.Gopal Reddy, v. The State of Telengana

Telangana HC7 Nov 2025WP/17219/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition to quash an FIR alleging offences under Section 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act arising from an alleged abuse within office premises. Following Supreme Court precedent that abuse must be in public view, and noting a joint memo seeking compounding by the complainant, the court allowed compounding and quashed the FIR proceedings.

What did the court decide?

IA No.1 of 2025 allowed; proceedings in FIR No.191 of 2016 against the petitioner/accused quashed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Y.Gopal Reddy, Vs The State of Telengana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO l.A NO.1 0F 2025 ln/and

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 17219 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

Y.Gopal Reddy, S/o Y. Puttama Reddy, Aged 66^years, occ Chairman^A.P.House Fed, R/o Flat^'No. 401, Vasavi lndra^prasta Apartments, Czech Colony,^Sanath Nagar' HYderabad'

¶10

...pETrroNER

¶11

AND1. The State of Telengana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Deparment of Home Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikadpally,^Hyderabad

¶13

The SHO, Chikadpally Police Station,. Chikadpally, Hyderabq.d. _

¶14

B.Gopal Naiak,, tViandging Director, A.P. House^{Fed, HouseFed Bhavan,} Bhagalingam Pally, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be} pleased to issue direction or an order or a Writ^particularly on in nature of writ of CERTIORARI, calling records from the 3rd^{respondentrelating crimeNo.191of} 2016. on 21-04-2016 on the file of the Chikkadpalli P.S^{HyderabdDistrict} registered under the^provisions of section 506 of lPC, section^{3(1)(Q(s) of SC ST} POA Act 2015, pursuant to the complaint made by the 4th^{respondent to quash} the same by declaring that the same is^illegal, arbitrary,^{irrational,ultra virus,} unconstitutional, violative of article^{14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia.}

I I I !

i#ibs

E*ry

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 2552 OF 20161 BETWEEN

¶21

B.Gopal Naiak,, Managing Director, A.P. House Fed, House Fed Bhavan, Bhagalingam Pally' Hyderabad ... ... ....petitioner/4rh respondent

¶22

AND

¶23

'1 . Y.Gopal Reddy, S/o Y. Puttama Reddy, Aged 66 years, occ Chairman A.P.House Fed, RJo Flat No. 491, Vasavi lndra prasta Apartments, Czech Colony, Santh Nagar. Hyderabad.

¶24

.......1"' RespondenVPetitioner

¶25

The State of Telengana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Deparment of Home Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶26

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chikadpally, Hyderabad

¶27

4 rhe SH o c h ikadpa rrv Porice station' t']Y.P"X'J;Hi,,i!?R3Xoo"oun,,

¶28

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted in WP No. 17219, dated 03.06.20'16

¶29

l.A. NO:2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO:21'185 OF 2016)

¶30

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to take any coercive steps including the arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the complaint registered in crime No.191 of 2016 on 21-0420'16 under the provisions of section 506 of IPC, section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC.ST POA Act 2015, pursuant to the complaint made by the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to compound the offences in Crime No. 191 of 2016 of Chikkadpally Police Station Hyderabad in W.P No. 17219 of 20'16, pending before this Hon'ble Court and pass such other order or orders.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. N .PRAMOD

¶34

Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 3: SRI B. SRIDHAR AGP FOR HOME

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No 4: MS TANU SRI REP SRI ANURUDH REDDY

¶36

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶37

THE HON'BLE S RI JUSTICE J. SIT.EENIVAS RAO I.A.No.l of 2025 in/and WRIT PETITION No.l72l9 of 2016

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This u,rit pctition has becn filed seeking to^{quash the} proceedings in FIR No.l9l of 2016 on the tile oithe^{Clhikkadapally} Police Station. Hyderabad, wherein the^{pctitioncr was anayedas} accused lor the offences punishable under^{Section 506 of the lndian} Pcnal Code, 1860^(for short 'lPC')^{and Scctions 3(l)(r)(s) of thc} Schedulcd Castes and the Scheduled^{Tribes(Prevention Of} Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015^(lor sho(^{'SC/ST (POA)Act)}

¶40

Heard Mr.N.Pramod, learncd counsel for^{the pctitioner,} Mr.B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Governt.nent^{Pleader lor Home} appearing for rcspondent Nos.l^{to 3 and Ms.Tanu Sri. leamedcounsel} representing Mr.Anurudh Reddy,^{learned counsel for respondent} No.4.

¶41

Leamed counsel for the petitioner^{submitted that the pctitioner,} while discharging his duties as^{Chainnan of the A.P.House} Federation, has not committed^{any offence or irregularity.He further} submitted that respondent No.4,^{whowas the ManagingDirectorof} the A.P. House Federation,^{lodgeda complaint on2l.04.2016making}

¶42

i I I

¶43

¶44

false allegations. even though the petitioner never abused respondent No.4 in the name of his castc. Even according to the allegations rnade in lhc conrplaint. tlre allegcd incident took place within the four rvalls ol'the olllce. arrd no other persors were present at the time o1' the allegcd otlcnce. II:ncc. the ingrcdients of thc alleged ofi'ences arc not attractcd a,,ainst thc pctitioncr. Hc further submitted that, during the pcndency oi' the r.r,r'it petition, the tenui-e of the petitioner was courpletecl and res;rondent No.4 also retired lrom service on attaining tlie age of superannuation. Subsequently, at the instance of well.'r,ishers and clders. the petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into a conrpronrisc and filed a.ioint memo and I.A.No.l of 2025, seeking to compound the oft-ences alleged against the petitioner. In the said luremo. rcspondent No.4 speciflcally stated that he has no interest to prosecute the czrse against the petitioner. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings a.sainst the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law

¶45

Lcarned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that rcspondent No.4 is not having interest to prosecute the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶46

IJaving considered the rival submissions made by the respective pafties and after perusal of the material available on

¶47

¶48

record, it reveals that the allegation against the petitioner, that he abused respondent No.4 within the fbur walls of the office, does not indioate that any member of the public was present at the timc of the allcged incident

¶49

I'he llon'ble Supreme Courl in Hiteslt Verma v. State of Llttarukhantlt specificalty held that the essential ingredients of an olfence under the SC/SI' (POA) Act, namely that the alleged abusive words were uttered "in any place within public view," rvas not salislled where the incident occumed within thc four walls of a building and no member of the public was present. Hence, the initiation of proceedings for the offences under Section SC/ST (POA) Act is a clear abuse of process of law

¶50

7 . ln Kontle Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty arul unothey', the Hon'ble Apex Courl reiterated the very same^principle.

¶51

l'he record lurther discloses that respondent No.4 filed I.A.No. I of 2025 to compound the offences against the petitioner and both the parties fited^joint memo

¶52

9 . Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh

¶53

'^{(2020) ro scc7 ro}

¶54

2 Crirninal Appeal No.555 of 2018

¶55

¶56

Vermu and Konde Nageshwar Rao (supra) and also joint memo filed b1 both the parlies. proceedings in F-tR No.19l of 2016 on the file ol thc Chikkadapalll Policc Station, Ilyderabad. againsr the petitioncr/ accused arc liable to be quashcd.

¶57

Accoldinglr. I.A.No. t of 2025 is allori,cd. Consequently. the lrrit pctition is al|rricd and the proceedings in IrIR No. 191 of 2016 on the file ol the Chikkadapally Police Station. Hyderabad, against thc petitioner^laccLrscd arc hcrcby quashed

¶58

Pcnding miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

SD/. B.REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

SECTION OFFICER 't ,ii

¶62

To,

¶63