Relief to Revanth Reddy in 2016 Case

Hyderabad:In a relief to Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy, the Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to intervene with the decision of the Telangana High Court that had set aside criminal proceedings initiated in 2016 against him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi dismissed a special leave petition challenging the High Court’s order. Dismissing the SLP filed by Rajalingam and others, the apex court observed that it appeared to be a case using of the courts for political battles or mileage.

The bench expressed reservations about the motive behind the litigation. The Chief Justice observed orally that courts were conscious of attempts to use judicial proceedings as instruments in political contests.

The complaint stemmed in 2016 from an incident at the Razole Constituency SC Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, where it was alleged that certain individuals vandalised property using heavy machinery and issued caste-based abuses when confronted. Rajalingam, director of the society, contended that the acts were carried out by one Kondal Reddy, at the instigation of his brother Revanth Reddy.

It was argued that although Revanth Reddy was not present at the scene, his alleged role as an instigator attracted liability under Section 6 of the SC/ST Act (abetment) and Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.

Senior counsel Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Revanth Reddy, contended that the allegations were speculative and unsupported by substantive material. He submitted that the complainant had a history of initiating vexatious litigation and that the High Court had correctly found no material directly linking Reddy to the alleged offences.

Justice Bagchi observed during the proceedings that the material on record did not demonstrate any direct nexus between Reddy and the acts complained of, apart from what appeared to be hearsay assertions. The Bench also took note of prior animosity between the complainant and the respondent.

In its order, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had undertaken a detailed examination of the investigative record and reached a plausible conclusion that no prima facie case was made out against Reddy. Finding no legal infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the High Court, the apex court bench declined to intervene.