Telangana High Court Quashes 2019 SC/ST Act Case Against CM Revanth Reddy

The Telangana High Court on Thursday (July 17) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Chief Minister Revanth Reddy under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 2016, for allegedly commissioning vandalism at a SC community society which eventually lead to caste-based abuses.

The FIR was registered back in 2019 under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 r/w 198, 120-b of the IPC and Sections (3)(1)(f)(g)(r) & (s) (va) of the SC/ST Act.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya however noted that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence that could link Reddy to the incident.

The bench observed that the case was registered based on allegations and the same could not be ground for conviction without proving Reddy's presence at the site of the alleged offense.

Interestingly, before the order was pronounced, the counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant made a mention stating that a transfer application had been preferred by him before the Supreme Court, with a prayer that the matter be listed before any other bench of the High Court.

The Counsel in the application had contended that the de facto complainant had not been allowed to present his case by the Bench.

After passing the order, Justice Moushumi noted that the application to transfer was preferred at the fag end of the hearing, i.e. after the matter had been reserved for orders. Further, the bench noted that there was no date showing when the transfer application was filed.

To the contention that the de facto complainant had not been given an opportunity to present his case, the Judge recorded, “the case was listed before me on multiple occasions, the de-facto complainant has submitted elaborate arguments, and submitted judgements in furtherance of his arguments as well; and the judgements find place in the order.”

The sum and substance of the dispute is that accused no. 2 and 3, upon alleged instigation by Reddy, broke into the Razole Constituency S.C. Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and vandalised the society property with JCB trucks.

When the residents of the community intervened, it is alleged that the duo abused them using caste slurs.

A complaint was preferred against the duo and during the course of the investigation they confessed to having acted at Reddy's indication, leading to the CM's name being arrayed as the primary accused.

The present petition was then preferred by Reddy, claiming that prima facie the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose any offense against him except the bald allegation that the act was committed at his behest.

Senior counsel C Raghu appearing for Reddy contended that previously also, in 2014, the complainant had preferred a similar complaint against Reddy and he was found not guilty after an elaborate trial.

It was further argued that no case for criminal trespass was made out against Reddy as he was never present at the site of the dispute. Further, no link could be established between him and the accused duo.

Lastly, it was brought to the notice of the Court that there was a property dispute surrounding the society land between the society and the other two accused, completely unrelated to Reddy.

The complainant on the other hand contended that Reddy was the criminal mastermind behind the incident and had been delaying the completion of trial before the lower court. His counsel too relied on the previous case of 2014 and argued that the Reddy would not stop his criminal ways, until subjected to criminal liability.

The High Court however ruled that unless Reddy's presence could be established at the Society at the time of the altercation, the provisions of IPC would not be attracted.

"The prosecution failed to establish a relation between A2&3 and A1. That, without there being evidence to prove that the actions of A2&3 were committed on the behest of A1, they would be liable for their own actions," the Court observed and allowed Reddy's petition.

Case: A.Revanth Reddy vs. State Of TG

Counsel for petitioner: Senior Counsel C Ragu appearing on behalf of Giri Kumar assisted by Fareedunnisa Huma

Counsel respondent: Public Prosecutor