Telangana High Court Quashes FIR Against BRS Leader KT Rama Rao In Defamation Case By Congress Party

The Telangana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against BRS Party President Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao, which was registered against him in the month of September, 2024 on the ground that a speech made by him defamed the Congress Party.

The complaint was filed by Athram Suguna, a Congress Leader from Adilabad in the Utnoor Mandal and the FIR was registered under sections 352 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 353 (: Statements conducing to public mischief), 356 (2) (defamation) of the BNS and further, sections 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 353(1) (b), 356(1), 171 (undue influence at elections), 174 and 175 (giving flase statements in connection with elections) of the BNS Act were added by way of a memo.

The order was passed by Justice K Lakshman, noting that the contents of the complaints did not disclose the ingredients of the sections attached. The Bench noted that the statements could not form a ground for cognizable offences.

In the complaint, it was alleged that KTR had given speeches in the media accusing the Congress Government within the State of Telangana of siphoning INR 25,000 crores under the guise of the Musi Project and sending the same to the Central Congress Party in Delhi. The complainant contended that the actions of the accused aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the Congress Government and the Chief Minister within the State of Telangana.

The State contended that since the complaint disclosed cognizable offences, the FIR was registered and investigation was underway and that the petition was filed with an ulterior motive to curtail the investigation, and prima facie it was noted that the speech of the accused defamed the government and had the potential to disturb public tranquillity.

The accused, on the other hand, contended that there was no Mens Rea in his actions, which is an essential ingredient of section 352 of BNS (intentional insult to breach state of peace). It was stated that the complaint failed to disclose which person had been directly insulted and that such person would break the public peace or commit any other offence. That even if the complaint was taken on face value, it would not disclose any cognizable offense.

After hearing all parties, the Bench, relying on the judgement rendered in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo noted that the main ingredient for defamation and provoking enmity between different classes would be mens rea, which could not be proved in the present case.

“In the instant case, the allegation leveled against the petitioner-accused is that he made allegations against Chief Minister of the State. It is between two individuals. Though one of them is Honorable Chief Minister of the State of Telangana, there is no mention of above referred ingredients anywhere in the material collected by the Investigating Officer. Further, from a plain reading of the alleged statement made by the petitioner-accused, it cannot be held that those statement, in any case, would create rumors, promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between two classes of persons or between different religions, race, language or regional groups or castes or communities. Viewed from any angle, the alleged statement made by the petitioner-accused would not fulfill the requirements under Section 353 (2) of BNS. Furthermore, there is no mens rea creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of people," the Bench noted.

In relation to the sections of law added at a later stage, the bench noted that neither the statements nor the FIR disclose the commission of the said offences and thus quashed the FIR.

“As discussed supra, the contents of the FIR as well as the statements of witnesses lacks the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 352, 353(2) and 356(2) of BNS. Even perusal of the contents of the FIR lacks the ingredients of the added Sections 61(2), 353(1) (b), 356 (1), 171, 174, 175 of BNS. 16. In view of the observations and findings recorded above, the proceedings in Cr.No.205 of 2024 pending on the file of P.S. Utnoor, against the petitioner-accused are liable to be quashed,” it said.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

KTR vs. State of TS

Counsel for petitioner: T.V. Ramana Rao

Counsel for respondents: T. Bala Mohan Reddy.

Click Here To Read/Download Order