Thutipally Ravi @ Ravi Kumar v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: N.TUKARAMJI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-04. Thutipally Ravi @ Ravi Kumar v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
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. 2. 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: 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 \ 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 abused the . complainant by referring to his caste, that certain accused persons 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. 5.
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 -the complainant. It is further submitted that the t:titioner has been falsely implicated due to political riva1ry and that I bLe continuation of the proceedings would amount to al abuse of the r. :ocess of law. 6. 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 titioner cannot 1r, be dissected at this stage. It is therefore contende: that interference under Section 482 )rocedure of the Code of Criminal is not wa-rranted. 7 . I have considered the rival submissions tnd perused the material placed on record 8.
It is a settled principle of law that while r: :r:rcising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Cr rninal procedure- 1973, 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 -or whether proceedings are manifestiy attended with ma-la fides; permitting such proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court, at this stage, is not expected is to embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence, but it equally impermissible to mechanically permit prosecution to proceed where the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences are absent, 9. 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. 10. 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 (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 with the aid of -v Section 34 of the IPC. Common intention canno tre inferred solely on the basis of presence unless there is c: materia,l lent 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 j in unwarrante, and mechanical implication. 12.
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 . r by the Trial Court <lependently, on its own merits and in accordance with 1aw. t \ \. , direction, this petition is allowed in part' - 13. With this applications, if any, shall As a sequel, pending misceilaneous stand closed. SD/- C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR --.. //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1: The Addl.
Judicial First Class lt/agistrate at Devarakonda. 2. The Station Hbuse Officer, Devarkonda Police Station, Nalgonda Dist' 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 4. One CC to Mr B. BALAJI, Advocate representing t\Ir R GlRl KU[/AR' Advocate Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies RC/PSL \ ( HIGH COURT DATED: 0410212026 ;l HES (J Irt t C) r) ,) it r I: I I I ORDER * * a \) h ,-l CRLP. No. 16328 of 2024 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is L lowed in Part I
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.