Introduction:

In a significant judgment delivered on July 17, 2025, the Telangana High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2016, along with several charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, which originated from an FIR registered in 2019, alleged that the accused commissioned an act of vandalism at the premises of the Razole Constituency S.C. Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, which reportedly escalated into caste-based abuses when residents intervened. The FIR included charges under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 r/w 198, 120-B IPC, and Sections 3(1)(f)(g)(r)(s)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, while quashing the proceedings, noted that there was no material evidence connecting Reddy to the alleged offense beyond bald allegations and the confessional statements of co-accused. The bench highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove Reddy’s presence at the scene or any direct involvement, emphasizing that mere allegations could not suffice to attract criminal liability.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner (Revanth Reddy):

Senior Counsel C. Raghu, appearing for Reddy, argued that the FIR and subsequent charge sheet failed to disclose any prima facie offense against his client other than unsubstantiated allegations. He submitted that Reddy had neither visited the disputed site nor had any direct or indirect role in commissioning the alleged vandalism. Counsel underscored that the complaint was politically motivated and driven by malice, pointing out that the complainant had previously filed a similar complaint in 2014, which resulted in Reddy’s acquittal after a full-fledged trial. This, according to the petitioner, demonstrated a pattern of harassment rather than bona fide grievance.

It was further argued that the confessional statements of the co-accused implicating Reddy could not be considered credible in the absence of corroborative evidence. These statements, the counsel maintained, were inherently weak and could not form the sole basis for sustaining charges under serious penal provisions, particularly under the SC/ST Act.

On the charge of criminal trespass, counsel contended that such an offense presupposes physical entry into the property in question, which was admittedly absent in Reddy’s case. Asserting that no direct nexus had been established between the petitioner and the alleged act of vandalism, the defense urged the Court to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

Finally, counsel highlighted that there existed a long-standing property dispute between the housing society and co-accused individuals (A2 and A3), which was completely unrelated to the petitioner. This, they argued, indicated that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in a dispute in which he had no stake.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent (De Facto Complainant):

The complainant, opposing the petition, contended that Reddy was the mastermind behind the incident and had orchestrated the acts of vandalism by instigating the other accused persons. Counsel argued that the petitioner’s political influence allowed him to evade accountability and delay trial proceedings. To support this claim, reliance was placed on the earlier 2014 case involving Reddy, asserting that his prior conduct demonstrated a propensity for unlawful acts when confronted with property or political disputes.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner’s involvement was revealed during the investigation when co-accused confessed to acting under his instructions. It was further argued that quashing the case at this stage would amount to short-circuiting the criminal justice process, depriving the complainant of the opportunity to establish his case during trial.

The respondent’s counsel also expressed dissatisfaction with the hearing process, contending before the Supreme Court (via a transfer application) that the High Court bench had not afforded adequate opportunity for arguments. However, this contention was refuted by Justice Bhattacharya in the order, noting that the complainant had presented elaborate submissions and even cited judgments, which were duly considered in the decision.

Court’s Judgment and Analysis:

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, after hearing both parties and reviewing the material on record, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against Reddy. The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was built entirely on allegations and uncorroborated statements, with no substantive evidence linking Reddy to the incident.

Key Observations:

• Absence of Presence or Nexus:

The Court underscored that the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses were absent. There was no evidence to prove Reddy’s presence at the housing society during the incident. Without establishing such presence or a direct connection, the IPC provisions relating to criminal trespass, mischief, and conspiracy could not be sustained.

• SC/ST Act Invocation Unwarranted:

The allegations of caste-based abuses were attributed solely to A2 and A3 (co-accused), with no material suggesting Reddy’s involvement. As per the Court, holding him vicariously liable without proof of abetment or instigation would be legally untenable under the SC/ST Act, which imposes strict liability only when there is clear evidence of participation or instigation.

• Confessional Statements Insufficient:

The Court reiterated the settled position that confessions of co-accused are weak evidence and cannot, by themselves, establish the guilt of another accused. In the present case, the alleged confessions lacked corroboration from independent witnesses or documentary evidence.

• Property Dispute as Underlying Cause:

The Court noted that the dispute primarily concerned the ownership of society land between the complainant and A2 & A3, which appeared to have escalated into the incident. The petitioner’s name surfaced only due to the confessional statements, suggesting possible mala fide intentions.

• Transfer Application and Hearing Fairness:

Addressing the complainant’s claim of denial of opportunity, the Court clarified that the case was listed multiple times, during which the complainant advanced detailed arguments and cited judgments that were duly examined. The transfer application to the Supreme Court, made after the matter was reserved for orders, was seen as an afterthought.

Conclusion of Judgment:

In light of the above, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, holding that allowing the trial to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the allegations were unsupported by credible evidence. The Court categorically stated:

 “The prosecution failed to establish a relation between A2 & A3 and A1. Without evidence proving that the actions of A2 & A3 were committed at the behest of A1, they would be liable for their own actions.”

The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability, particularly under stringent laws like the SC/ST Act, cannot be based on speculation or polit

ically motivated allegations.