New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday upheld an order of the Telangana High Court that had quashed criminal proceedings against Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The apex court agreed with the reasoning adopted by the High Court and dismissed the challenge filed by the original complainant, observing that the view taken by the High Court was both “possible and plausible”.
A Bench led by Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, rejected the petition filed by N. Peddi Raju, who had approached the Supreme Court challenging the July 2025 judgment of the Telangana High Court. While dismissing the plea, the Bench remarked that courts are often required to “read in between the lines” to understand how political battles manifest through criminal litigation.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Peddi Raju, a member of the Scheduled Caste (Mala) community, who served as the Director of the Razole Constituency Scheduled Caste Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hyderabad. The complainant alleged that Revanth Reddy, along with others, had instigated his brother and associates to trespass upon land belonging to the Society at Gopanpally village and demolish two rooms using an earth-moving machine, allegedly with the intention of forcibly occupying the property. It was further alleged that caste-based remarks were made against the complainant during the incident.
Based on these allegations, a case was registered invoking Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, Revanth Reddy moved the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the essential ingredients of offences under the SC/ST Act were not made out.
In its detailed order, the single-judge Bench of the Telangana High Court had accepted this contention. The High Court held that a dispute relating to possession of land, even if it involves a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste, would not automatically attract the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. It emphasised that for an offence under the Act to be established, there must be a clear intention to insult, intimidate, or humiliate the victim specifically on the ground of their caste.
“The offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act is not made out merely because the de facto complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. There must be a clear intention to humiliate the de facto complainant for that specific reason,” the High Court had observed. It further held that the alleged abuses and insults, as reflected in the charge sheet, were not sufficient to implicate Revanth Reddy under the provisions of the Act.
The High Court also exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, noting that the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It concluded that the charge sheet did not disclose the commission of any cognisable offence against Revanth Reddy and that permitting the trial to continue would not serve the ends of justice.
The Supreme Court, while affirming this reasoning, refused to interfere with the High Court’s judgment. The apex court noted that the High Court’s interpretation of the facts and law was reasonable and did not warrant reconsideration. Consequently, the criminal case against the Telangana Chief Minister under the SC/ST Act stood finally closed.
The matter had earlier attracted significant attention due to a related contempt proceeding. The Supreme Court had initiated contempt action against the complainant and his lawyer after a transfer petition was filed containing allegedly scandalous allegations against Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, who had passed the High Court order quashing the case. In July last year, a Bench led by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai had issued show-cause notices to the petitioner and his counsel, questioning why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.
Although the counsel later sought to withdraw the petition, the Supreme Court declined the request and directed the litigant to file an apology. Taking note of what it described as a growing trend of making scurrilous allegations against judges for unfavourable orders, the Bench strongly deprecated such practices. Ultimately, since Justice Bhattacharya accepted the apology, the Supreme Court closed the contempt proceedings, observing that the majesty of law lies not merely in punishment but also in forgiveness when a genuine apology is tendered.
