Telangana High Court reserves judgement in phone tapping case
Counsel highlighted that the State and the complainant are working hand in glove, while the police are filing multiple FIRs to keep as reserve FIRs to arrest the petitioner in one or the other case
Hyderabad: Justice K Lakshman of Telangana High Court on Friday reserved judgment in a quash petition filed by former DCP Radha Kishan Rao, accused in the phone tapping case.
The case stems from a second FIR filed by Punjagutta police based on a complaint from a real estate businessman and Congress leader Chakradhar Goud, alleging illegal phone tapping. E Uma Maheshwar Rao, representing the petitioner, argued that the complainant has been consistent in filing multiple FIRs against the petitioner only with an intention to harass the latter.
After the first FIR, another FIR was registered with an inordinate delay only to oppose the bail application, said Rao. He also pointed out that even the reason for the delay was not explained. Rao stressed the point that the complainant, belonging to Congress by June 2024, directly filed a complaint with the DGP on June 19, 2024, without approaching the jurisdictional police.
The counsel highlighted that the State and the complainant are working hand in glove, the police are filing multiple FIRs to keep as reserve FIRs to arrest the petitioner in one or the other case without any need to issue PT warrants.
The complainant claimed that he and his family members were put to torture by the petitioner. However, the same was not mentioned anywhere in the FIR or 161 crpc statements, counsel said.
The grievance of the complainant in the FIR is only regarding the phone tapping but not regarding any torture or harassment alleged to be caused by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is wrongly implicated in the present case, Rao stated and sought to quash the same.
On the other hand, the public prosecutor representing the State argued that the complainant was harassed and threatened by the petitioner on several occasions.
He said the two FIRs are distinguishable and requested not to quash it on the grounds of multiple FIRs filed on the same matter. The counsel, representing the complainant, reiterated the submissions of PP and argued that Chakradhar Goud was constantly harassed by the petitioner.
He further alleged that the petitioner holds a grudge against Goud for having a political rivalry.
The counsel stated that the complainant was put to torture for the past 10 years and that the police failed to take a statement. Hearing the arguments at length, the judge reserved the case for verdict. It may be recalled that the verdict in the quash petition filed by former Minister T Harish Rao is also reserved for the verdict by Justice Lakshman.
