Telangana High Court
K. Chandrashekar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 24 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4537 of 2026
DATE: 24.04.2026
BETWEEN:
K. Chandrashekar Rao and 2 others
..... Petitioners/
Accused Nos.2 to 4
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court at Hyderabad and another
..... Respondent/
De-facto complainant
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.71 of
2011 on the file of P.S. Gandhinagar, which was subsequently
re-registered as FIR No.80 of 2011 on the file of P.S. Central
Crime Station, Hyderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the complaint lodged
by the 2nd respondent at Gandhinagar Police Station was
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4537 of 2026
initially registered as FIR No.71 of 2011 dated 10.03.2011 for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 382 and
149 IPC against unknown persons. The allegation in the
complaint is that on 10.03.2011, during the “Million March”
called by Political JAC and OU JAC at Tank Bund, the
complainant, who was working as a videographer for ETV-2
channel, was covering the event with his Panasonic 3 CCD
camera. While he was recording visuals of agitators burning a
police vehicle, a group of about 50 agitators surrounded him,
abused him, snatched his camera and threw it into Hussain
Sagar Lake. Later, as per the endorsement of the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, the case was transferred and re-
registered as FIR No.80 of 2011 dated 13.03.2011 on the file
of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad for the same offences.
After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet
against Accused Nos.5 to 23, while the present petitioners
were shown as absconding accused.
3. Heard Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra
Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.1 – State.
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4537 of 2026
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are innocent and have no role in the alleged
offence, and that the FIR was registered based on the
complaint of the 2nd respondent alleging that unknown
agitators snatched and threw his camera into Hussain Sagar
Lake during the “Million March” on 10.03.2011. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed against A-5 to A-23, while
the petitioners were shown as absconding accused, and the
case was taken on file as C.C. No.104 of 2013, wherein A-5 to
A-23 were acquitted by judgment dated 04.09.2013 and no
appeal was preferred. He further submitted that the
petitioners were not named in the FIR, there is no material in
the charge sheet to attract the alleged offences and even the
statements of witnesses do not implicate them and that the
complainant himself did not identify the assailants during
trial. He further contended that multiple FIRs for the same
incident are impermissible and amount to abuse of process of
law and relied upon the judgments the Hon’ble Apex Court
and this Court in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Jakka
Vinod Kumar Reddy vs. State of Telangana respectively.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners by allowing this Criminal Petition.
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4537 of 2026
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
opposed the petition by filing counter affidavit stating that the
investigation reveals that the petitioners, being leaders of the
Pro-Telangana JAC, instigated and directed the unlawful
assembly, which indulged in rioting and destruction of
property in violation of prohibitory orders and that mere
acquittal of A-5 to A-23 does not entitle the petitioners to
quashing, particularly when they absconded and avoided the
process of law. He further submitted that the offences affect
public order and the present petition is filed only to delay
proceedings, as such, petitioners have not made out any valid
grounds for quashing the proceedings against them.
Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal
Petition.
6. In light of the submissions made by both learned
counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record,
it is observed that the allegations against the petitioners
pertain to offences under Sections 147, 148, 382 and 149 IPC
arising out of the incident dated 10.03.2011 during the
“Million March”. It is an undisputed fact that in respect of the
very same incident, the police, after investigation, laid a
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4537 of 2026charge sheet against Accused Nos.5 to 23, and the case was
taken on file as C.C. No.104 of 2013. After full-fledged trial,
the said accused were acquitted by judgment dated
04.09.2013 on the ground that the prosecution failed to
establish the formation of an unlawful assembly and the
participation of the accused therein. The prosecution
witnesses, particularly PWs.1 and 2, who are the de facto
complainant and eye-witness respectively, categorically
deposed that they were unable to identify the assailants
involved in the incident. PW.1, in his evidence, clearly stated
that he went to upper Tank Bund to cover the news relating to
Milliennium March and while he was covering the news, a
group of 60-70 agitators attacked him, snatched his camera,
and threw it into Hussain Sagar Lake, and beat him and also
his friend, by name Prasad of Zee TV News Reportor and he
could not identify any of them as they covered their faces with
kerchiefs. PW.2 also reiterated the same and further stated
that the agitators tried to pelt big stones on them and they
escaped and that he also failed to identify any of the accused.
7. Further, PWs.3 and 4, being the investigating officers,
have not placed any material on record establishing the
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4537 of 2026identity or specific overt acts attributable to the present
petitioners. A perusal of the complaint and statements
recorded during investigation reveals that no descriptive
particulars or identifying features of the alleged assailants
were ever mentioned.
8. In the present case, the petitioners were not named in
the FIR and have been subsequently arrayed as accused
merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations. There
is no substantive material to connect the petitioners with the
alleged offences. When the co-accused, who faced trial on
identical allegations, were acquitted due to lack of
identification and failure of the prosecution to prove the case,
continuing the proceedings against the present petitioners
would amount to abuse of process of law. In Janyavula
Rambabu Vs. The State 1, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
at Hyderabad, observed that:
4. The petitioner was the first accused in that
case. As he could not be apprehended for a
considerable time the case against him was
split up and registered as SC 162/91.
Thereafter the trial in SC 74/88 proceeded
and an order of acquittal was recorded under
Section 232 Cr. P.C. stating that there is no
1
1992 SCC OnLine AP 89
7
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4537 of 2026
evidence that the accused committed the
offence. After the disposal of that SC 74/88
the petitioner who was A-1 in the Sessions
Case was apprehended and he has to face
the trial in SC 162/91. It is under these
circumstances the petitioner has filed this
petition to quash the proceedings on the
ground that none of the material witnesses in
that case have spoken about the complicity of
any of the accused in the commission of the
offence and that therefore no useful purpose
will be served by proceeding with trial in SC
162/91. The accused is charged for offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 148, 302
read with Section 34 IPC. The Conspiracy is
alleged to have taken place at Vasantha
Mahal Lodge between 1-4-87 and 15-4-87.
The witnesses that were examined to speak
about the conspiracy have totally denied the
knowledge of the alleged conspiracy. The
deceased in this case is said to have been
attacked on the evening of 15-4-87 at the
outskirts of Kothapplli village by stopping the
bus in which he was travelling. All the
witnesses to the incident including the defacto
complainant have turned hostile. They have
totally denied knowledge of the incident. Even
the witnesses for the alleged recoveries have
not supported the prosecution and they stated
that they signed the mahazars at the instance
of the police.
5. Thus under these circumstances it is clear
that there is no evidence to show that any of
the accused committed the offence. So the
learned Sessions Judge has recorded an
order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr. P.C.
6. The same witnesses have to be examined
even during the trial in S.C. 162 of 1991 and I
find that no useful purpose will be served
except wasting the Court’s time and the public
8
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.4537 of 2026
money by proceeding with trial against the
petitioner in SC 162/91. I feel that such
procedure only results in abuse of process of
Court and nothing else. Hench I feel that it is
desirable that proceedings in SC 162/91
should be quashed in the interest of Justice.
9. In view of the same, in the present case, also there is no
incriminating evidence against these petitioners. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered view that no prima facie case is
made out against the petitioners warranting continuation of
proceedings.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, and the
proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in FIR
No.71 of 2011 on the file of P.S. Gandhinagar, which was
subsequently re-registered as FIR No.80 of 2011 on the file of
P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 24.04.2026
SS