WP/7342/2026 of Mamidipalli Srinivas Vs Union of India on 13 March 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.353 of 2022 Jagtial Town Potice Station, Jagtial Distrir;t, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as the accused, for the offenc,es punishable under Sections 504, 505(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000'

2. Heard Sri Shaik Muhamrned Abed, learned counsel for the petiti)ner and Mr.V.Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l. :

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this cou:Iin crl.P.Nos.4905 0f 2025 and batch, dated 10.09.2025. { a\

lr

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed . the submissions made by the learned counsel for,petition.. Ho*"urr, basing' upon the written instructions fumished' by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District, submitted that, even prior to the filing of the present criminal petition, the Investigating Officer, after conducting the investigation, had filed the final report before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagtial, and the C.C. number is awaited.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this Court in Cr1.P.Nos.4905 of 2025 and l batcfr, 'dated 10.09.2025, this criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in F.I.R.No-353 of 2A22 Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous aPPlications, if any, stand closed. //TRUE COPY 1 . The 1't Additional Jurdrciai First Class Magistrate At Jagitial.

2. The Station Police Station ,Jagtial District. ED ABED, Advocate [OPUCI REDDY / ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, to SRI SHAIK M

4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC P Telangana IOUTI.

5. Two CD Copies. {tr UTOR, High Court for the State of AR /PSL Note: A copv of Ctil .P. No. 490-i of 2015 & batch dated 10.09.2025 enclosed herewith a I : I I I I I I I I I i : t i i

HIGH COURT DATED:251031i2O26

ORDER

CRLP.No.43'19 ot 2026 ALLOWINGi THE CRL.P H T B o t o U ?<'('. ],r d6l s E fl * n26 ED H P c A r

* @ @r,.t *,qtttM

Nr&J CRLPS 490s, 4903 & 8416_202s THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI SrIIlIN PETITION 4903 & 8416 of TINB ER I have heard Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No. 1 -State.

2. As the crimes are arising out of similar factual matrix and the petitio'ner/accused is alleged to have committed the offences within the scope of self same sections of prosecution' these matters were heard together and are being adjudicated in this common order.

3. Criminal Petition No.4905 o 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS') seeking quashment of the proceedings in FIR No. 8 of 2025 registered at Police Station, CCPS Ramagundam, Telangana Cyber Security Bureau ('TSCSB") against the petitioner/accused. Pursuant to a report lodged by Respondent No- 2, the said police station registered a case alleging commission of offences under Sections 192, 353(1)(b), 352, and 356 read with Section cRrPs-49os, 4903 & 8416:r#j 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023 (.BNS,,) and Section 67 of the lnformation Technology Act, 2008 ("tTA, 2008"). The irllegation is that the petitioner, using the Twitter handle @Nallabalu, posted a tweet criticising the Congress party in the following terms: "congress is the scourge of the state! rf the fierd is affected by the pest, the people wilt be disturbed,, Criminal Petition No. 4903 of 2025 is likewise filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashment of the proceedings in FIR No. 13 of 2025 registered at police Station, CCP{i Karimnagar, TSCSB, against the petitioner/accused. On the basis of a report by Respondent No. 2, the police registered a case for offences punishable under Sections 192, 353(1Xb), 352, and 356 read with Section 61(2) of BNS, atong with lsection 67 of lTA, 2008. lt is aileged that the petitioner posteC on Twitter a photograph of the Hon,ble Chief Minister of Telangana with the caption: "No Vision, No Mission, Only 2O% Commission! This is how the l5-month rule of the Revanth Reddy ted Congress Govemment is in Telangana."

cRt-Ps-4eos, 4s03 & 84165;tj The complainant, a police constable, alleges that this post was intended to provoke public unrest, defame the Chief Minister, and disturb public tranquility.

5. Cri o

o. 84 of has also been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of proceedings in FIR No. 146 ot 2025 registered at police Station, GDK-I Town, Ramagundam, against the petitioner (anayed as Accused No.2). On '18.03.2025, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that, on 04.03.2025 and 11.03.2O25, while browsing the social media platform "X" (formerly Twitter), he encountered allegedly vulgar and abusive messages posted by two individuats, including the petitioner, targeting the Hon,ble Chief Minister of Telangana. The case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 352 and 356(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned tweets constitute an exercise of the petitioner,s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, made on social media purely as expressions of political opinion, without any intent to incite violence or disturb public peace.

CRtPs-4gos, 4903 & 8416'1r#; Consequenfly, the essential ingredients of the offences under Secticns 352 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short'the BNS,) are absent. It is further argued that there is no erement of farse evidence involved, and thus, Section 1g2 of the BNS, pertaining to th e offence of giving or fabricating farse evidence has no applir:ation, as neither the offence of rioting nor false evidence is even alleged in the complaint. The attribution of these provisions to the, petitioner is, therefore, without basis. With respect to Section 356 of BNS (defamation), counsel submits that the provision mandates that the comptaint must be made by the 'aggrieved person, and not by any unrelated third party Similarly, Section 67 of the lnformation Technotogy Act, 2008 ('the lT Act,), which penalises the pubtication or transrnission of obscene material, is inapplicable, as even acceJrting the impugned statements at face value, they amount, at best, to political criticism and not obscenity. Furthermore, the allegation is limited to the petitioner havin,S posted the tweet in question on social media. ln the abserrce of any averment suggesting the invorvement of other indivirluals, the provisions retating to criminal consprracy under I

NTR,J CRLPS_4905. 2t903 & 8416_2025 section 61(2) of BNS or common intention under section 3(s) of BNS cannot be invoked. counsel emphasizes that ail the complaints are devoid of specific particulars regarding the allegedly obscene content, the precise dates of posting, or any actual impact on public order. The police reports were filed beratedly, rendering the proceedings arbitrary and unsustainable. on these grounds, it is prayed that the records be called for and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.

ln response, the learned public prosecutor submits that, despite the issuance of multipre notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the petitioner willfulty faired to appear and produce the requisite electronic devices and documents, thereby demonstrating deliberate non-comptiance. It is further contended that the petitioner is implicated in multiple criminal cases across the State of relangana, indicative of a continuing pattern of similar conduct. The prosecution asserts that the tweet in question was intentionally posted with the objective of defaming and provoking unrest against a democratically elected government. This, it is argued, squarely

Nr&J CRLPs_4905, 4903 & 841G_202S attra<;ts the provisions of section 67 of the rr. Act, which is indep'sn6ently punishable irrespective of any claim of defamation. with particurar reference to FrR No. 146 of 2025, it is alleged that the petitioner/accused, along with another individual, is asr;ociated with the Bharat Rashtra samithi (BRS) party and, on 0'1.03- 2025 and 1 1.03.2025. posted defamatory and abusive content on the sociar media pratform .x, (formerry Twitter) targeting the Hon'bre chief Minister of rerangana. These posts, according to the prosecution, caused social unrest. provoked public outrage and The prosecution further submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the witness statements have been recorded, and relevant digitat evidence has been coilected. rn right of the pendt:ncy of the investigation, it is prayed that the present petitions be dismissed. B. I have carefuily considered the submissions of the rearned couns;el and perused the materials on record. 9' The sociar media posts attributed to the petitioner, which contarn the aileged statements, are prima facie evident from the recorrl. At the outset, it is a settted proposition of law that content poste'J on sociar media pratforms may, in appropriate

NTR,] CRLPS_4905, 4903 &. B4t6_2OZs circumstances, amount to criminal offences such as defamation, hate speech, incitement to violence, public mischief, and other cognizable wrongs. ln such cases, prosecution is maintainabte under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023 (BNS/, the lndian penat Code, 1860 (tpc) (where applicable), and the lnformation Technotogy Act, 2000 (tr Act).

10. However, to proceed with prosecution on such imputations, the investigating agency must prima facie find admissible material both the requisite intent (mens rea) and the actual or probabte harmful effect (acfus reus) of the alleged act. [/ere publication of offensive or criticat content, without making out a case of an intention to cause the piohibited consequences, is insufficient to proceed with the crimina! proceedings. Authentication of the content, proper collection of evidence and positive identification of the person responsible for the posting are essential prerequisites. courts, in this regard, are duty-bound to adopt a balanced approach safeguarding the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression underArticle 1g(1)(a) while ensuring that such freedom does not extend to speech that causes tangible harm, such as misinformation, targeted harassment, or incitement

NTR,] CRLPs_4905,4903 & 8416 2025 to disorder. Preserving this balance is critical to both democratic discourse and maintenance of public order. 11' ln the present case, the aflegations broadry encompass charges of provocation to commit rioting, fabrication of farse evidence, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, circulation of statements conducing to pubric mischief, and defanration- The maintainabirity of prosecution for these offences necer;sariry depends upon the specific factual context in which the impugned acts occurred.

12. Acts that amount to intentionar insurt rikery to provoke breach of peace, onrine mischief carcurated to promote enmity or violerrce, and defamatory imputations, if dury estabrished wourd justify continuation of prosecution. conversery, where the statutory ingredients of the offence are absent, mere political criticir;m, however harsh, cannot attract criminar sanction. 13' The porice report in FrR No. g of 2o2s aileges that the petitic'ner's tweet was defamatory, provocative, and poriticaily motiv;ated. rn FrR No- 13 0f 2025, the compraint arteges that the staternents were fatse, poriticaily motivated, and devoid of regar merit. FrR No 146 0f 2025 aileges that the petitioner,s remarks mXP"":E:,

NTR,] CRLPs_4905, 4903 & B4t6_202S sought to damage the reputation of the Hon,ble chief Minister, thereby disturbing sociat peace and creating a likelihood of conflict between rival political groups.

14. The relevant statutory provisions are summarised berow:

a. section 1gz BNS - wanton provocation with intent to cause riot: Attracts liability where a person, with ill intent, provokes others with knowtedge or intention that such provocation may cause rioting. Mere offensive language without such intent is insufficient.

b. section 191 BNs - Rioting: Requires an unlaMut assembry of five or more persons using force or violence towards a common illegal object. A social media post alone does not complete this offence unless it incites and results in unlaMul assembly and violence

c. section 3s2 BNS - rntentional insult to provoke breach of peace: Necessitates proof of grave and sudden provocation, typically involving direct and abusive remarks calculated to incite retaliation cRLPs-49os, 4eo3 & 841G1r#;

d. Section 3S3 BNS _ Statements conducing to public mischiet Penalises circulation of false or incendiary statements desielned to cause public alarm, enmity, or hatred.

e. Section 356(2) BNS - Defamation: Applies to publication of false imputations intended or known to cause harm to reputation. Essential elements include falsity, intent, knowledge of probable harm, and resulting reputational injury.

f. Ser;tion 61(2) BNS - Griminal conspiracy: Requires proof of agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. g section 3(s) BNs - common intention: Extends riabirity to acts tlone jointty in furtherance of a common unlawful object.

h. Section 67 tT Act - Obscene material in electronic form: Limiterd to sexually explicit or lascivious content capable of corrultting or depraving viewers.

15. ln light of the above provisions, the allegations against the petitic,ner must be scrutinised to determine whether they establish a prinra facie case.

NTRJ CRLPS_4901 4903 & 8416 202s 16' The substratum of the compraints is that the petitioner (i) engaged in politicar criticism of the ruling party and government, and (ii) used ailegedry vutgar or abusive remarks against the Hon'ble Chief IVlinister 17 ' Upon review of the impugned sociat media posts, the regar position is as follows; The first post, which describes the congress party as a "scourge" and rikens it to a "pest,,,is harsh and metaphorical but constitutes poriticar criticism. rt does not attract section 1g2 0f the BNS on promotion of enmity, since it targets a poriticar party and not a protected group. Nor does it fail within section 352 BNS on intentionar insurt or Section 3s3(1xb) eNs ;n pubric mischief, as there is no imminent threat of pubtic disorder. At most, it courd amount to defamation under section 3s6 read with section 61(2) BNS; however, statutory exceptions such as truth for pubric good and fair comment provide strong defences.

18. rhe second post, which a[eges "20o/o commission,, in the rule of the chief Minister and the ruring congress party in Telangana, is ctoser to the domain of defamation as it names both the chief A/inister and the party. A government cannot sue for defamation, as herd in R. Rajagopat v. state of ramir Nadu

CRLps-4905, 4e03 & B4t61r;:C (1994), but individuar ministers and poriticar parties as associations may do so. Even here, statutory defences of truth and fair comment in the pubric interest remain avairabre. sections 192 352, and 353(1xb) BNS are inappricabre, as the criticism is political, not communal or provocative. 19' The third posf, invotving vurgar and abusive remarks against the Chief Minister, may at best be construed as defarnation- section 67 0f the rnformation Technorogy Act, 2008, which penarizes obscene materiar in erectronic form, is not apprir:abre, as the remarks, though abusive, are not obscene. 20' constitutionary, ail three posts fa, within the protection of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression- Restrictions under Articre 1g(2)appfy onry in narrow circunrstances such as defamation, incitement to viorence, or imminent threat to pubric order. The supreme court in tvlaneka Gandhi v' rJnion of tndia (1g7g), Rangarajan v. p. Jagjiva, Ram (1989)' and subra manian swamy v. rJnion of rndia (2016) has consisten'y affirmed the high rever of protection granted to political expression in a democracy.

t7 CRLPs_490S, 4903 & 21' As for procedure, under the BNSs, criminar defamation is punishabre by up to two years' imprisonment, a fine, or both. cognizance can onry be taken on a compraint fired by the aggrieved person, or in rimited cases by a pubric prosecutor with prior sanction. The compraint is fired before a Magistrate of the First class, who records statements and issues summons if a prima facie €se exists. The triar then proceeds as a summons case, where the accused may rery on the ten statutory exceptions, incruding truth, fair comment, and privireged communication. 22' ln conctusion, the impugned posts do not attract the applicatr.n of sections 1 92, 3s2, or 353(1xb) of the Bharatiya Nyaya sanhita, 2023, nor section 67 0f the rnformation Technorogy Act, 2oog. At best, they may fail within the rimited ambit of defamation under section 356 read with section 61(2) BNS. Even in that context, however, the avairabirity of statutory exceptions, such as truth for the pubric good and fair comment, as well as the robust constitutionar safeguards for poriticar expression, provide a strong shield to the petitioner. consequently, any attempt to prosecute the petitioner under provisions other than defamatio NT&J ut6_2025 .,.,,,.',..'."n.*iM"Bffi;i,.:i:i,]:..i:i.:] n would be legally unsustainable

IVTR,J CRLPS_4905, 4903 & 8416_2025 More importantty, the present criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of police reports filed by third parties, and not through a compraint by the aggrieved person, as mandatoriry required under the BNSs framework for prosecuting defamation. ln rhe absence of rocus standi of the comprainant, the cont;nuation of these proceedings wourd be not onry improper but also untenable in law. 23' Articre 1g(1)(a) of the constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, subject to reasonabre restrictions under Article 19(2), which permits limitations only in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, security of state, friendry rerations with foreign states' pubric order, decency, morarity, contempt of court, defanration, and incitement to offence. 24' The penar provisions areged require specific prima facie material: defamation requires fatse imputations harming reputation; insurt requires grave and sudden provocation; pubric mischief requires circuration of farse or inflammatory materiar; and sectiorr 67 rr Act appries onry to obscene sexuar content. Notabr'7, criminar defamation is a non-cogn izabre offence under crPC, investigation of which requires a magistrate,s order under Sectior 155

ii. cRlps-4sos, 4eo3 & B4r6lllj 25' The Hon'ble supreme court has consistenry crarified the limits of criminal liability for speech: i' shreya singhat v. tJnion of rndia (2015)5 SCC t herd that mere annoyan@ or offensive remarks are not criminar; onry incitement to viorence or disorder justifies restriction. Kedar Nath Singh y. Sfafe of Bihar (1962) SCR Supt. (2) 769 upheld the constitutionality of sedition taw but timited its apprication to speech inciting viorence or disorder. subramanian swamy v- lJnion of tndia (2016) 7 scc 221 upherd criminar defamation but stressed the requirement of false factuar imputations and actuar reputationat injury, distinguishing it from political criticism. Larita Kumai v' Govt- of tJ.p- (2014)2 SCC 1 mandated FIR registration only for cognizable offences; for non_ cognizabre offences such as defamation, preriminary I[. iv enquiry or judicial sanction is required. Arnesh Kumar v. Sfafe of Bihar (2014) B SCC 273 cautioned against mechanical arests and stressed proportionality in criminal process. 26' Applying these principles, the impugned tweets, such as "Congress is the scourge...,,and ,,No Vision, No l\4ission...,,, are

_ Mr&J CRLPs_4905 4903 & 8416 2O2s plainly political criticism and satire, which do not amount to defamation or pubric mischief and are fufly protected by Articre 19('l)(a). The third tweet, though afiegedry vurgar or abusive towards the chief Minister, cannot be equated with defamation abstlnt false factual imputations. since defamation is non-cognizable, the registration of FlRs without compliance with section 174 BNSS and without a Magistrate,s order is pro':durafly unsustainabre. None of the tweets contain obscenity under section 67 rr Act, nor do they discrose erements of pubric mischief (section 353 BNS) or provocation to riot (sections 1911192 BNS). Additionarty, the mechanicar registration of FrRs in this case, without preliminary enquiry, is in violation of the binding dicta rn Lalita Kumari(supra). 27 - when the factuar matrix of the present case is examined in light of the seven iilustrative categories raid down in sfafe of Haryana v. Bhaian Lal, 1992 Supp (t) SCC 33S, it is evident that the pr.ceedings squarery fail within murtipte categories warranting quashrnent. First, under categories (1) and (2), the ailegations in the FlFts, even if taken at their face varue and accepted in their entirety" do not disctose the commission of any cognizabre offence, save for a tenuous aregation of defamation. secondry, ffi$,mm ii, 1q -1,, ;,:t,-,,,,, ::. :. : :. ..-.'.. -a: -:..r.-.,:rt-..-,. "

- NTR,J CRLPS_4905, 4903 & B4t6_2025 under category (3), the uncontroverted ailegations on record fair to satisfy the statutory ingredients of the offences invoked, such as provocation to riot, intentional insurt, or public mischief. Finaily, under category (5), there exists a crear regar bar to prosecution, inasmuch as the raw mandates that criminar defamation proceedings can onry be initiated by way of a private compraint by the aggrieved person. tn the present case, the FrRs have been registered on the basis of porice reports or third-party compraints, which render them procedurary incompetent and regary unsustainable. 28- For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the considered view that the impugned tweets, though criticar, fail squarery within the ambit of legitimate political expression. ln the absence of statutory ingredients of the alleged offences, the registration of FlRs without requisite enquiry or judiciar approvar is unsustainabre in raw, and continuation of proceedings wourd amount to an abuse of process. Accordingry, the crirninar petitions are liable to be allowed. 29' Before parting with this judgment, this court considers it necessary to make certain observations. Having regard to the factual and regar position discussed herein, and with a view to 2L

CRLPs-4905, 4903 & 84165;:; safeguarding fundamentar rights as weil as preventing the criminar process from being invoked mechanicaily or arbitrariry, it is aopropriate to prescribe a set of operationar guiderines for porice authorities and Judiciar Magistrates when deating with procr-redings initiated on the basis of sociar media posts. These directions are particurarry retevant in cases where the registration of First rnformation Reports (FrRs) is sought in connection with such posts. Accordingry, the potice authorities are directed to adhere to the following guidelines:

i. Ve,rification of locus standi: Before registering any FIR for alleged defamation or simirar offences, the porice must verify whefirer the comprainant quarifies as the ,,person aggrieved,, in terms of raw- comptaints by unrerated third parties racking stand'ng are not maintainabre, except where the report concerns a cognizable offence ii' Pretiminary inquiry in cognizabre offences,- where a representation/complaint discloses a cognizabte offence, the police sha[, prior to registration of crime, conduct a preriminary inquiry to ascertain whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are, prima facie, made out.

NTR,J CRLPS_4905,4903 & 841G 2025 iii' High threshotd for media post/speech-rerated or7ences.- No case alreging promotion of enmity, intentionat insurt, pubric mischief, threat to pubric order, or sedition shafi be registered unless there exists prima facie materiar discrosing incitement to viorence, hatred, or pubric disorder. This threshord must be applied in rine with the principres raid down in Kedar Nath singh v. Sfafe of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769, and Shreya Singhat v. Union of tndia, (ZO1S) S SCC 1. iv' Protection of potiticat speech/posf.- The porice shail not mechanicaily register cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical poriticar speech. onry when the speech amounts to incitement to viorence or poses an imminent threat to pubric order may criminar raw be invoked. constitutionat protections for free political criticism under Articre 1g(1)(a) of the constitution must be scrupulously enforced v' Defamation as a non'cognizable offence: Since defamation is classified as a non-cogn izabre offen@, the porice cannot directly register an FrR or crime in such matters. The comprainant must be directed to approach the jurisdictionar Magistrate. porice action may foilow onry upon a specific order of the Magistrate under Section 174(2)of the BNSS. i*ftii;*: ;.,' .': ::,,;,'

NTR,] cRtPs_4905, 4903 & 8416 2025

vi. c:ompriance with arrest guidetines.- rn ail cases, the porice shall stricfly compty with the principres raid down in Arnesh Kumar v' slafe of Bihar, (2014) B scc 273. Automatic or mechanicar ?rres;ts are impermissibre, and the principre of proportionarity in the exercise of criminal process must be observed.

vii. Prior regar scrutiny in sensitiye cases.. rn mat{ers invorving politir;al speech/post or other sensitive forms of expression, the police shail obtain prior regar opinion from the pubric prosecutor before registering an FrR, to ensure that the proposed action is legally sustainable. viii- Ftrivorous or motivated compraints: where a compraint is found to be frivorous, vexatious, or potiticaily motivated, the porice shall close the matter under Section 116(1) of the BNSS, citing abserrce of sufficient grounds for investigation.

30. ln right of the above directions, criminar petition Nos. 4905, 4903, and g41 6 0t 2025 are arowed. consequenry, the procer:dings against the petitioner in (i) FIR No. 0g of 2O2S registered at porice station, ccps Ramagundam, Terangana cyber security Bureau (TScsB); (ii) FrR No, 13 0f 2025 registerred at police Station, CCPS Karimnagar, TSCSB; and (iii) -.ir,*iSSSEffi*iX I'io:i.',i, ;

- NT&J CRLPS_4905,4903 & &116 2025 FIR No. 146 of zo2s registered at porice station,'GDK_| rown, Ramagundam, are hereby quashed. N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 10.09.2025 Note : Registry is directed to serue u gopy to the DGp, Terangana state Police, for appropriate action and to the iudicial First Llu* Magistrates of the State of Telangana, for reference. Blo. ccM/svL.

[ 3300 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 7342 OF 2026 l .*',,;.Between: ,1,, Mamidipalli Srinivas, S/o. Shankariah Mamidipalli, Aged about 36 years, Occ and Private Employee, Rl/o. H.No and 5-4-246, Narshala Palli, NTPC, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District, Telangana 50521 5 ...PETITIONER , AND

1. Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs ,New Delhi

2. The Regional Passport Officer, Regiona! Passport Office, D.No 8-2-215to 219, Adjacent to Prashanth Theaters, Kummarguda, Secunderabad 500003.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Godavarikhani, PS NTPC, Peddapalli District, Telangana.

4. Smt. Mamedipelli Sravani and Laxmi, W/o Mamidipalli Srinivas, Aged about 32 years,Occand House Wife R/o H.No. 5-4-246, Narrashalapally, NTPC now at H.No. 4-1-295, Subashnagar, NTPC, Ramagundam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the ' nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in refusing to process the passport application of the Petitioner vide File No. HY7066382084326 dated 1110212026 vide Letter Reference No. SCN/1053853379/26 dated '2010212026 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the , Constitution of lndia and contrary to the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967 and : 'Gazette Notification GSR 570(E) dated 25108t1993 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to process and issue the Passport to the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct . t.. .t

the Respondents, particularly Respondent No.2, to forthwith process and issue the Passport to lhe Petitioner in respect of Passport Application File No. HY7066382O84326 dated 11.02.2026, so as to enable the Petitioner to travet abroad for atterrding the mandatory training programme for a period of 50 (Fifty) days conductetl by his employer company, and permit the Petitioner to travel : abroad for the s,aid purpose. Counsel for ther Petitioner: SRI M.P.K.ADIWA Counsel for ther Respondent Nos.l & 2: SMT. N.V.R.RAJYA LAKSHMI, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. Counsel for ther Respondent No.3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for ther Respondent No.4: - The Court mad'e the following: ORDER |,. t* t'j' 1_i.._!.

IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA NTSTTi''TdI'IIF' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA PETITION No.7342 of2wrd Dated: 13.o3.2026 Mamidipalli Srinivas Petitioaer The Union of India, Rep., by its Secretar5r, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & others The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondent passport authorities in not issuing the petitioner's passport uide File No.HY7066382O84326, dated L1.O2.2O26, on the ground of pendency of a criminal case.

2. Heard Sri M.P.K. Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Learned Government Pleader for Home, for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

3. Learnr:d counsel for the petitioner submits that mere arraignmenl: of the petitioner in a criminal case cannot be a ground for denial 01: passport. He relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.321 ':- of 2026, dated 04.02.2026.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits tha: a criminal case is pending against the petitioner ufde C.C.No.95 of 2023 before the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cumlll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. She, by referring to Offrce Memorandurn dated 10.10.2019 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, subnrits that in view of the pending criminal proceedings against the 1:etitioner, the petitioner is required to approach the concerned trial Court for necessar5r NOC/permission to obtain passport, and thereafter furnish the same before the passport authority for considering issuance of passport. In the instant case, the petitioner: has not furnished NOC/permission from the trial Court and therefore there is no illegality in refusing to issue the passport.

5. This Co':rt has carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material available on record. It is settled law that mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot be a

ground to refuse issuance of passport. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.l94 of 2026, dated 17.02.2026, wherein the Division Bench has observed as follows: "13. In the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court concerning the interpretation of GSR 57O(E) dated 25.08. 1993 and Oflice Memorandum dated 10. 10.2O19, we are of the considered view that the appellant should make an application for seeking NOC from the concerned trial courts where criminal cases are pending against him. It is upon issuance of NOC that the appellant should lile an application for renewal of the passport. In case the courts prescribe a period for which the passport is to be issued, the passport authority should honour that period. Otherwise, if it does not stipulate any period, the notification provides default rules, including issuance for a shorter period, ordinarily one year, in appropriate cases."

6. In the instant case, there is no material placed on record to show that the petitioner liled an application before the concerned trial Court seeking a "No Objection Certificate" for issuance of passport. In view of the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the concerned trial Court and make an appropriate application seeking a "No Objection Certificate" for issuance of passport. Upon filing such application, the concerned trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within one week from the date of frling of such 1I i Upon the NOC by the petitioner, the passport authority shall consider the same for issuance of passport in accordan,:e with law.

7. It is made clear that the Noc that may be issued by the trial court to ttLe petitioner for issuance of passport shall not be construed ar; a permission to travel abroad. In case the petitioner intends to travel abroad during pendency of criminal proceedings, the petitioner shall file a separate application seeking permission to travel abroarl, by speci&ing the duration of travel, and the trial court shall consider such application on its own merits, by imposing appropriate conditions in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law to secure the presence of the petitioner in case of violation of any of the conditions so imposed while granting abroad travel perrnlsslon.

Accordirrgly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Miscellarleous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD'.

2.

3. To ,,TRIJE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER

: il5rfli,t+1ilXn??Tt'ttioner or Police, Godavarikhani, ps Nrpc, peddapaili I One cc to sR:LM:p:K.ADtTyA, Advocate topucl

6. one cc to sMr. w.V.n.nn.lyA LXK"sritfitlE'c"rtn cENTRAL Gow. loPUCl 7 ' Two ces to Gp FoR HOME, High court for the state of retangana, at _ flyderabad. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies PSK. PSK tu

HIGH COURT DATED t1310312026

ORDER

WP.No.7',342 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u THE S Y 1l l{I\R * * \ ol4 t { /