The Telangana High Court Thursday quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy in 2016, then an MLA of the TDP, under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case stems from a complaint filed against him at Gachibowli police station by N Peddi Raju, Director, Razole Constituency S C Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited. In the complaint, Raju alleged that at Revanth’s behest, his brother, A Kondal Reddy, and others illegally trespassed onto the land in Gopanapally belonging to the society. He claimed they demolished a room of the society with an earthmover to occupy the land, and also abused the de facto complainant using casteist slurs.
The case is currently in the trial stage before the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the SCs/STs POA Act, 1989, and the VII Additional District Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district. In 2020, Revanth Reddy approached the Telangana High Court to seek the quashing of the case.
The bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya on Thursday allowed Reddy’s plea. The court found that Reddy was not present at the place at the time as claimed in the complaint, and viewed that the case against him is not maintainable.
Before the pronouncement of order, the counsel for the de facto complainant informed the bench that a transfer application had been filed with the Supreme Court. This application sought to have the case heard by a different bench of the High Court, alleging that the complainant hadn’t been allowed to present their arguments fully.
However, after delivering the order, Justice Bhattacharya pointed out several discrepancies. Justice Bhattacharya noted that the transfer application was brought up only at the very end of the hearing, after the matter had already been reserved for orders. Additionally, the bench observed that the application lacked a filing date, raising questions about its timeliness.
The court directly addressed the complainant’s contention of not being heard. Justice Bhattacharya stated that the “case was listed before me on multiple occasions.” She further highlighted that 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,” directly refuting the claim of being denied an opportunity to present their case.
