Telangana High Court: In a petition filed for quashing of a defamation case filed against K. Taraka Rama Rao (‘KTR Rao’), Bharat Rashtra Samithi (‘BRS’) Working President and MLA, by a member of the Indian National Congress Party (‘Congress Party’) alleging that he made a statement that Rs. 25,000 Crores would be siphoned off to Congress Party by the current Chief Minister of Telangana (‘CM’), a Single Judge Bench of K. Lakshman, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned complaint, holding that the contents of the FIR and the witness statements lacked the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 352, 353(2) and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).
Background
A complaint was filed against KTR Rao for his statement that since September 2024, there were allegations that the Congress Party was siphoning Rs. 25,000 Crores from the Musi Project in Hyderabad. On discovering that KTR Rao, in a press conference, made statements that the CM had given many assurances with an intention to come to power, the said defamation complaint was filed. He further stated that to save his chair, the CM planned to send Rs. 25,000 Crores to the Delhi Congress out of the Rs 1,50,000 Crores Musi Project. The complainant contended that such lies were being told in a way that harmed the reputation and responsibility of the Congress Party and gave the wrong signal to the people of Telangana.
Upon a preliminary inquiry being conducted, a complaint case was registered against KTR Rao under Sections 352, 353 (2), 356 (2) of the BNS.
Aggrieved, he filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court perused Section 352 of the BNS wherein it is provided that there should be an intentional insult and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it is to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be punishable. Furthermore, as per Section 353(2) BNS, whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
The Court referred to Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. (1997) 7 SCC 431, wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with similar circumstances, held that the main ingredients of Section 505 (2)1 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), are provoking enmity, hatred or ill-will between different classes of people. It was also held that mens rea is equally necessary to postulate the offence under Section 505 (2) of the IPC.
The Court noted that in the instant case, the allegation levelled against KTR Rao was that he made allegations against the CM. The Court remarked that the dispute was between two individuals. Though one of them was the CM, there was no mention of the abovementioned ingredients anywhere in the material collected by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’). Further, the Court noted that from a plain reading of the alleged statement made by KTR Rao, it could not be held that those statements, in any case, would create rumours, promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between two classes of persons, or between different religions, race, language or regional groups or castes or communities.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that the alleged statement made by KTR Rao would not fulfill the requirements under Section 353 (2) of BNS from any angle. Furthermore, there was no mens rea of creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different classes of people. The Court stated that KTR Rao was facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 352 and 353(2) of BNS, and the IO did not classify whether the offence alleged against him fell under Section 353(2) BNS or not. Even the allegations made in the FIR and the statements recorded by the police did not provoke enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different classes of people, etc.
The Court also noted that initially, the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 352, 353(2), and 356 (2) of BNS, but during the course of the investigation, based on the witness statements, the IO added Sections 61(2), 353(1) (b), 356 (1), 171, 174, 175 of the BNS. The Court held that the contents of the FIR and the witness statements lacked the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 352, 353(2), and 356(2) of BNS, and even perusal of the contents of the FIR lacked the ingredients of the additional Sections.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint case pending against KTR Rao.
[Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao v. State of Telangana, Criminal Petition No. 2733 of 2025, decided on 21-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: T.V. Ramana Rao
For the respondent: T. Bala Mohan Reddy
1. Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023