Telangana High Court quashes FIR against KT Rama Rao
The Telangana High Court, led by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, has quashed criminal proceedings against BRS leader K.T. Rama Rao in a defamation case related to the 2024 MLC elections. The complaint, filed by political opponent Teenmaar Mallana, alleged the circulation of fake videos intended to tarnish his reputation.
By Legal Correspondent
Hyderabad: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court on Friday quashed the criminal proceedings against Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) legislator K.T. Rama Rao, who is also the working president of the party. The case stemmed from an FIR registered against him and another BRS MLA G. Jagadish Reddy at the Medipally police station. The complaint was filed by Chintapandu Naveen, also known as Teenmaar Mallana, who was a candidate for the Graduate Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections for the Warangal-Nalgonda-Khammam constituency.
The FIR was lodged based on Naveen’s complaint, which alleged that K.T. Rama Rao and Ramesh Babu, a personal assistant to Suryapet MLA G. Jagdish Reddy, engaged in a “vicious, scandalous and malicious campaign” by circulating fake videos on social media. The complaint stated that the campaign’s purpose was to damage Naveen’s reputation and influence the outcome of the MLC elections held on May 27, 2024. KTR was charged under section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
Counsel for the petitioner, T.V. Ramana Rao, argued that the allegations were false and fabricated. He contended that the complaint was vague and lacked specific details about the alleged fake video, the date it was circulated, or the social media platforms used. Ramana Rao asserted that the alleged statements, even if true, would not satisfy the ingredients of section 505(2) of the IPC, as they did not aim to create enmity or hatred between different classes of people. Furthermore, he argued that the complaint contained no allegations of identity theft or cheating by personation, making the charges under the IT Act baseless.
The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor D. Arun Kumar , and the de facto complainant, represented by Ambedkar Dunna, made their respective submissions. The State’s counter-argument highlighted that the de facto complainant failed to produce relevant evidence despite being issued notices on two occasions, April 15, 2025, and June 18, 2025. The complainant, in his own counter, stated he was unable to provide evidence due to his busy schedule and claimed it was the Investigating Officer’s duty to collect it.
The State also argued that the investigation should not be stayed at this early stage as further investigation was necessary. In her order, Justice Bhattacharya observed that the allegations in the complaint did not satisfy the requirements for any of the sections mentioned in the FIR. The court noted that the sole allegation of circulating “fake videos” was too broad and lacked necessary particulars. The judge pointed out that the de facto complainant failed to provide any evidence, despite being served with two notices by the police.
Justice Bhattacharya further stated that the police lacked jurisdiction to handle a defamation complaint, which falls under the purview of a Magistrate. Citing the precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court noted that quashing an FIR is appropriate when the allegations, even if taken as true, do not constitute a cognizable offense. The order concluded that allowing the investigation to continue would be an abuse of the legal process, as no cognizable offense was disclosed against the petitioner.
