‘Vague, without necessary particulars’: Telangana High Court quashes FIR against KTR in fake videos case

Naveen alleged that Rama Rao, along with Ramesh Babu, the personal assistant of Suryapet MLA G Jagdish Reddy, were involved in a “vicious, scandalous and malicious campaign” against him. He alleged that they were circulating “fake videos” on social media platforms to damage his reputation, and sway the electoral outcomes in the ensuing MLC elections for the Warangal-Nalgonda-Khammam constituency.

While dealing with the criminal petition, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya observed the complaint’s contents do not satisfy any of the provisions mentioned in the FIR, and the only allegation that the petitioners were circulating fake videos… was “vague and without necessary particulars”. The court also stated that the de facto complainant (Naveen) failed to provide any evidence despite being served two notices by the police in April and June 2025.

“Inherent power under Section 482 (of CrPC) can be exercised either to prevent abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice. The present case qualifies under both these yardsticks,” Justice Bhattacharya stated.

The bench added that no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed against the petitioners in the complaint FIR for the court to permit the investigation to continue against the petitioners.

The accused were charged under sections 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 66-C and 66-D (identity theft and punishment for cheating by personation using a computer resource) of the Information Technology Act.

Ramana Rao T V, the counsel for KTR, contended the allegations were false and fabricated, and that the complaint does not disclose any criminal intent on the part of the accused. He contended that the alleged statements, even if true, would not create rumours, promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes of people.

He described the complaint as vague and absurd, as it lacked specifics about the alleged fake video, the date it circulated on the specific social media platforms used. Stating that there is no allegation of identity theft or cheating by personation using a computer resource, the counsel argued that there were no ingredients for charges under the IT Act.