Thutipally Ravi @ Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Thutipally Ravi @ Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in S.C. Spl. No. 27 of 2023 quashed in respect of the offence under Section 323 IPC and the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act; the specifically attributed allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC remitted to the Trial Court for independent examination; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against the petitioner (Accused No.2) in S.C. Spl. No. 27 of 2023, resting on his mere presence at the scene without any specific overt act attributed to him by eyewitnesses, amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashment under inherent jurisdiction (S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS).

Court's answer

Mere presence at the scene of offence, without any specific overt act or material indicating shared intention, is insufficient to attract criminal liability with the aid of Section 34 IPC; common intention cannot be inferred solely on the basis of presence unless there is clear material demonstrating a pre-arranged plan or active participation.

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 323 IPC cannot be sustained and would amount to an abuse of the process of law; the proceedings against him are quashed to that extent.

Key takeaways

Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be sustained and would amount to an abuse of the process of law; quashed to that extent.ratio¶53
The allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, having been specifically attributed to the petitioner, is preserved and shall be examined by the Trial Court independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.528 BNSS by Thutipally Ravi @ Ravi Kumar (Accused No.2) seeking quashment, qua himself, of proceedings in S.C. Spl. No. 27 of 2023 dated 31.01.2023 pending before the Special Sessions Judge for SC/STs-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda (chargesheet in Crime No. 154 of 2019 for offences u/Ss.323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act 2015, arising from an alleged incident of 25.11.2018 at the BJP party office). Court found that other eyewitness statements attributed no overt act to Accused No.2, whose alleged role was confined to a threat; held that mere presence at the scene, without specific overt act or material showing shared intention, is insufficient for liability u/S.34 IPC; quashed the proceedings against him for the S.323 IPC offence and the SC/ST (POA) Act provisions as an abuse of the process of law, while leaving the specifically attributed S.506 IPC criminal-intimidation allegation for independent examination by the Trial Court. Petition allowed in part; pending miscellaneous applications closed. (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, N. Tukaramji J., decided 04.02.2026.)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N,TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16328 OF 2024

Between:

Thutipally Ravi @ Ravi Kumar, S/o. Ramachandram, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Advocate, R/o.Devarkonda, Nalgonda District.

...Petitioner/Accused-2

AND

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad.

Sri Pothem Karunakar, S/o.lddaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o PA Pally Village & lt4andal, Nalgonda Drstrict.

...Respondents/Defacto Compla i nant

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the SC. Spl. No. 27 of 2023 dated 311O112023 against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on the file of SPL. Sessions Judge for SC/STs cum ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda, for the offences U/Sec. 323, 504, s06 r/w 34 lPC, 3(1)(r)(s) SC ST POA ACT 2015

LA. NO: 1OF 2024

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Grant stay of all further proceedings in SC. Spl. No.27 of 2023 daied 3110112023 against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 on the file of SPL. Sessrons Judge for SC/STs cum ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, at Nalgonda, for the offences U/Sec. 323,504,506 r/w 34 lPC, 3(1) (r) (s) SC Sf POA ACT 2015, pending disposal of the above criminal petition-

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of t\4 r B. BALAJI, Advocate representing Mr R GlRl KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and [/r E. GANESH, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAN A AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TU13 ARAMJI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16328 0F t o24

DATE':o,4.02.2o26

Between:

Thutipally Ravi.

...Petitionr:: -.Accused No.2

AND

The State of Telalgana ald another

...Respondents/Delb cto Complainant

ORDER:

This criminal Petition has been rrled seeking < uashment of the proceedings insofar as they relate to the petitioner,/ \ccused No. 2 in S.C. Spi. No. 27 of 2023, dated 3i.01.2O23, pencl.,rg on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for sc/ STs-cum-II A < clitionar District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

Heard Sri B.Balaji, learned counsel, repres€ rting Sri R.Giri Kumar. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E:. ]anesh, rearned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

The brief facts, as borne out from the - :cord, are that respondent No.2 todged a police report on 01.06.2:19 alleging that

.-i

2

\

on 25.11.2018, at about 3:00^{p.m., when} he^visited the^{BJP party} office, the petitioner along with other accused^persons was^present therein. It was alleged that one .^{of the accused abusedthe} complainant by referring to his caste, that certain^{accusedpersons} assaulted him and pushed him into a drainage calal, and^that thereaJter some of the accused, including the^{petitioner,threatened} him with dire consequences by stating that he would be killed if^he visited the party office again. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No. 154 of 201,9 was registered. Upon completion^of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed for offences^punishable under Sections 323, 504, ald 5O6 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2O15. Accused No. 2 has been shown as liable for offences under Sections 323, 5O4, and 506 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even a bare perusal of the complaint and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation would demonstrate that, except for the allegation made by the defacto complainant, none of the other eyewitnesses have attributed any overt act to the petitioner. On the contraqr, the witnesses have categorically stated that although the petitioner was present at the scene, he neither abused nor assaulted

3

the complainant. It is further submitted^{that the} 1^{t:titioner has been} falsely implicated^{due to political riva1ry and that I bLe continuationof} the^proceedings would amount^to al^{abuse of} the^{r.:ocessof law.}

On the other hand, the learned Assistanl Public Prosecutor submits that the police report and the staterr⁽ rrt of the defacto complainant clearly establish the presence of th, petitioner at the scene of occurrence and his participation in t re incident. It is argued that variations in the statements of witnel; ,es are matters for trial, and since the offence is alleged to have : :en committed in furtherance of common intention, the role of the 1r, titioner cannot be dissected at this stage. It is therefore contende: that interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal^)rocedure is not wa-rranted.

7 . I have considered the rival submissions tnd perused the material placed on record

It is a settled principle of law that while r: :r:rcising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Cr rninal procedure1973, or under Section 528 of the Bharatiya I agarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the High Court is required to exir nine whether the uncontroverted allegations, taken at their face va1" e and accepted in their entiretSr, disclose the commission of any of r nce; whether the

4

proceedings are manifestiy attended with^{ma-la fides; or whether} permitting such proceedings to continue would amount^{to an abuse} of the process of the Court.^The Court,^{at this stage, is not expected} to embark upon a meticulous appreciation of^{evidence, but itis} equally impermissible to mechanically permit^{prosecution to proceed} where the foundational ingredients of the alleged^offencesare absent,

In the present case, the materia-l on record clearly establishes that the petitioner was present at the BJP office at the^{relevant point} of time. The defacto complainant has specifically identified^the accused persons who are alleged to have abused him by referring^to his caste arld those who assaulted him and pushed him into the drainage canal. Significantly, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation is confined to an assertion that he threatened the complainant with death if he visited the office again.

It is equally material to note that the statements of the other eyewitnesses consistently indicate that although the petitioner^was present at the scene, he neither abused nor assaulted respondent No. 2. Thus, even if the statement of the victim is accepted in its entirety, the petitioner is not attributed with any role relating to the offences under Section 323 of the IPC or the offences under Sections 3(l)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled^Tribes

I

\

II

5

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complaint itself , istinctly identilies the accused persons alleged to have committed thr se specific acts.

1 1. The law is well settled that mere presen,) r at the scene of offence, without any specific overt act or material indicating shared intention, is insufficient to attract criminal liabi r -v with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. Common intention canno tre inferred solely on the basis of presence unless there is c: lent materia,l to demonstrate a pre-affanged plan or active partici ration. Extending the allegations against the petitioner merely orr l,he basis of his presence would therefore result in unwarrante, j and mechanical implication.

In view of the above discussion, this Court i:; c,f the considered opinion that the continuation of proceedings agai rst the petitioner for offences under Section 323 of the Ipc and unr er the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Trib _- ; (prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be sustained and would arr ,unt to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the procecri n.gs against the petitioner are liabie to be quashed to the said extrr rt. However, it is clarified that the allegation pertaining to criminal i- :imidation under Section 506 of the IPC, having been specificarlv Lrtributed to the petitioner, sha.ll be examined by the Trial Court .r <lependently, on its own merits and in accordance with 1aw.

t

6

\ .,

With this^{direction,this petition is allowed in part'}

As a sequel,^{pending misceilaneousapplications, if any, shall}

stand closed.

SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

--.. ECTION OFFICER

To,

1: The Addl. Judicial First^{Class lt/agistrate at Devarakonda.}

The Station Hbuse^{Officer,Devarkonda Police Station, NalgondaDist'}

Two CCs to the Public^{Prosecutor,High Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

One CC to Mr B. BALAJI,^{Advocate representingt\Ir R GlRl KU[/AR'} Advocate Advocate [OPUC]

Two CD CoPies

RC/PSL

\ (

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410212026

ORDER

CRLP.No.16328 of 2024

;l HES Irt
t (J
C)
,)
r)
it r I: I I I

a
) h ,-l

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is L lowed in Part

I