The Telangana High Court has reaffirmed that registering multiple FIRs for the same incident constitutes an abuse of process, quashing proceedings against an accused who merely forwarded social media content linked to the SSC paper leak controversy. The judgment underscores the necessity of distinguishing between mere dissemination and criminal intent under stringent statutes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Konatham Dhilip Kumar @ Konatham Dileep Reddy, is arrayed as Accused No.2 in FIR No.87 of 2025, registered at Nakrekal Police Station. The complaint was filed by a Congress party leader belonging to the BC community, who alleged that certain YouTube channels and T-News broadcasts falsely linked her to Nalla Srinu @ Bandi Srinu, an accused in the SSC Telugu Board exam paper leakage case, portraying Srinu as her driver. The complainant claimed this portrayal damaged her reputation, insulted her on account of her community, and adversely impacted her political career.
Key Facts
- The alleged false news was circulated via social media platforms and YouTube channels in connection with the SSC paper leakage case
- The petitioner is not alleged to have created the content but is accused of forwarding or sharing it
- No specific post, video, or message authored by the petitioner is identified in the FIR
- The complainant is a woman politician, and the alleged imputation involved her association with a person accused in an educational scam
- The FIR invokes three penal provisions: Section 353(1)(c), Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Procedural History
- 15.02.2025: FIR No.87 of 2025 registered at Nakrekal Police Station
- 09.09.2025: Telangana High Court quashed FIR No.87 of 2025 against another accused in Crl.P. No.8989 of 2025, holding the content did not attract any of the invoked sections
- 18.03.2026: Criminal Petition No.12722 of 2025 filed by petitioner seeking quashing of proceedings against him on identical grounds
- 18.03.2026: Order passed by Justice K. Sujana allowing the petition
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contends he is a victim of political vendetta and has been falsely implicated to divert attention from the larger SSC paper leak case. He asserts he did not generate the content, had no intent to incite enmity, and the material does not refer to caste or community in a manner that attracts the SC/ST (POA) Act.
The State opposes quashing, arguing that the forwarding of false content with intent to harm reputation and political standing constitutes a criminal act, and that investigation has yielded incriminating material including social media logs.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.87 of 2025 and all proceedings arising therefrom, on grounds of abuse of process and absence of essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the forwarding of a social media post, without evidence of intent to incite enmity or hatred between communities, and without any reference to caste or community in the content, can attract offences under Section 353(2) BNS and Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, particularly when multiple FIRs have already been quashed on identical facts.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner did not originate the content, had no mens rea, and the material circulated did not mention the complainant’s community or use caste-based slurs. He relied on the court’s own earlier order dated 09.09.2025 in Crl.P. No.8989 of 2025, which held that similar content did not satisfy the ingredients of the invoked sections. He emphasized that mere forwarding of information, without active creation or malicious intent, cannot be criminalized under these provisions. He further cited T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. State of Telangana to argue that multiple FIRs for the same incident are an abuse of process.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the act of forwarding false news with the intention to damage the complainant’s reputation and political career amounts to criminal conduct. He argued that the investigation had collected digital evidence and witness statements indicating the petitioner’s involvement, and that quashing at this stage would prejudice the probe. He maintained that the court should not interfere while investigation is ongoing.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the content in question and the legal requirements of the invoked provisions. It noted that Section 353(2) BNS requires proof of intent to promote enmity or hatred between classes or communities, and Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (POA) Act requires an act that is intended to insult or intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on account of their caste or tribe. The Court found no allegation in the FIR that the content referred to the complainant’s community or used caste-based language.
"The alleged Twitter post relating to the SSC paper leakage case does not disclose any intention to incite enmity between communities, nor does it create fear or alarm to the public so as to disturb public tranquility."
The Court reiterated its earlier holding in Crl.P. Nos.8965, 8966 and 8989 of 2025, which had already addressed the identical factual matrix. It observed that the same incident cannot give rise to multiple FIRs, and that doing so amounts to abuse of the process of law, as held in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy v. State of Telangana. The Court further noted that the State’s reliance on ongoing investigation cannot override the clear legal deficiency in the FIR’s allegations, particularly when the same facts have already been adjudicated by the same court.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in FIR No.87 of 2025 before the Nakrekal Police Station are hereby quashed. All pending miscellaneous applications in this petition are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Multiple FIRs for Same Incident Are Per Se Abuse of Process
- Practitioners must move to quash subsequent FIRs arising from the same incident, citing T.T. Antony and Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy
- Courts are bound to intervene even at the investigation stage if multiple FIRs are registered on identical facts
- The doctrine of abuse of process applies regardless of whether investigation is ongoing
Social Media Forwarding Does Not Automatically Constitute Criminal Liability
- Mere forwarding of content without intent to incite hatred or insult on caste grounds does not attract Section 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (POA) Act
- Section 353(2) BNS requires active promotion of enmity - passive sharing without intent is insufficient
- Prosecutors must establish specific mens rea and direct nexus between the content and the prohibited effect
Judicial Consistency in Quashing Baseless FIRs
- Courts will not permit repetitive litigation on identical facts
- A prior quashing order on the same content binds subsequent proceedings
- Petitioners may rely on prior orders from the same court to seek immediate quashing without re-litigating facts
