Telangana HC reserves verdict on plea filed by KCR, Harish Rao
The petitioners sought to nullify summons issued by district court in connection with alleged irregularities in the construction of Medigadda barrage
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday heard arguments and reserved its verdict in a quash petition filed by former Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao and former Irrigation Minister Harish Rao.
The petitioners challenged summons issued by the Bhupalpally District Court in a case concerning alleged misappropriation of public funds. Justice K Lakshman was hearing the quash petition filed by KCR and Harish Rao, seeking to nullify the summons issued by the district court in connection with an allegation of large-scale financial irregularities involving an amount of over Rs 1.35 lakh crore in the construction of Medigadda barrage.
Counsel representing the petitioners argued that the complaint lodged against them does not disclose any personal grievance and that the summons issued by the district court should be quashed. They further stated that the complainant, Rajalingamurthy, initially filed a private complaint before the Magistrate, seeking action against the two leaders for the alleged misappropriation of government funds. However, the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction, and did not take cognizance of the matter.
Following the dismissal, the complainant approached the Sessions Court through a criminal revision petition. However, the Registry of the Sessions Court raised objections regarding the maintainability of the revision petition and directed the complainant to address these issues before proceeding.
The counsel for the petitioners contended that despite these objections, the Sessions Judge had proceeded with the merits of the case without hearing the objections and issued summons to the petitioners.
In support of their argument, the petitioners’ counsel referred to various Supreme Court judgments regarding the scope of revisional powers and claimed that the actions of the Sessions Judge were in violation of the established legal procedures.
During the hearing, it was revealed that the complainant, Ramalingamurthy, was no longer alive. As a result, the counsel for the complainant could not represent him in court, and no petition had been filed by the complainant’s legal representatives.
The counsel for the petitioners pointed out this technical issue, while the public prosecutor, representing the State, argued that a case cannot be dismissed merely because the complainant died. Citing judgments from the Supreme Court and the Karnataka High Court, the public prosecutor submitted that the Sessions Judge had appropriately taken suo motu cognizance based on the private complaint and had issued the summons correctly.
The public prosecutor also urged the court to remand the matter back to the Magistrate for further investigation under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, Justice Lakshman noted that the Magistrate had reported that the complainant had no further evidence to present, which raised doubts about the usefulness of remanding the case.
In response, the public prosecutor argued that the complainant had provided evidence in the form of eight witnesses mentioned in the complaint, although the complainant’s counsel had closed the evidence in the earlier proceedings. Justice Lakshman, after hearing all parties, stated that he would review the trial court records before issuing a judgment. The matter was then reserved for a verdict.
