The telangana high court freashed the proceedings against bharat rashtra samithi (BRS) Legislator Kt Rama Rao in a criminal case registered against him at the medipally Political Political Last Year.
The First Information Report (Fir) was lodged on a complaint lodged by then MLC Candidate Chintapandu Naveen Alias Teenmaar Mallana.
Naveen alleged that rama rao, along with ramesh babu, the personal association of Suryapet mla g jagdish reddy, were involved in a “vious, scandalous and malicious campaign”. He alleged that they were circulating “fake videos” on social media platforms to damage his reputation, and swey the electoral outcomes in the evasion mlc elections for the warangal-ungonda-kkhammam.
While Dealing With the Criminal Petition, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya Observed the Complint’s contents Do not sitsfy any of the provisions mentioned in the fir, and the only allegation this petitioners weeer ckke. Was “Vague and Without Necessary Particulars”. The court also stated that de Facto Complainant (Naveen) Failed to Provide Any Evidence Despite Being Served Two Notices By the Police in April and June 2025.
“Inner Power under section 482 (of CRPC) can be exercised eather to prevent abuse of law or to security of the ends of justice.
The bench added that no cognizable offer or offer of any kind is disclosed against the petitioners in the complaint fir for the court to permit to permit the investigation to continue against the petitioners.
The accused were charged under sections 505 (2) (Creating or Promoting Enmity, Hatred or Ill-will between classes) For cheating by Personation using a computer resource) of the information technology act.
Story Continues Below this ad
Ramana Rao TV, The Counsel for KTR, Contended the Allegations were false and fabricated, and that complaint something not disclose any criminal inttent on the part of the accured. He contended that the alleged statements, even if true, would not create rumours, promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes of peope.
He described the complaint as vague and absurd, as it lacked specifics about the alleged fake video, the date it circulated on the special media platforms. Stating that there is no allegation of identity theft or cheating by using a computer resource, the counsel argued so there it was no ingredients for charge.
