Hyderabad: BRS President and former Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao and former minister T. Harish Rao approached the Telangana High Court, Bhupalpally on Monday challenging the summons to appear in the case filed on the basis of a private complaint of damages. Because of the Medigadda barrage and misappropriation of public money.
As per the sessions court’s directions, both the BRS leaders were to appear on December 27. They had not appeared in court on previous occasions.
Suspecting that the Sessions Court may take strict action after they did not appear, both of them filed a joint criminal petition in the High Court demanding the annulment of the order of summons.
Nagavelli Rajalingamurthy, a resident of Bhupalpally, had filed a private complaint in the court of First Class Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate Jaishankar Bhupalpally, seeking directions for the complaint of damage caused by the Medigadda barrage. Investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Bhulapalli Police.
He said the two leaders were booked under Sections 120-B, 420, 386, 406, and 409 of the IPC, with respect to criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust and cheating. However, the court dismissed the complaint as it was only a special court for hearing offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, saying that it did not have jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by this, Rajalingamurthy filed a revision petition before Principal Sessions Judge Jaishankar Bhupalapalli. The Registry of the Court raised the objection that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to entertain criminal retrial petitions; However, the case was requested to be posted before a judge for decision.
After filing the complaint in court, the Principal Sessions Court accepted the complaint and issued notices to Chandrasekhar Rao, Harish Rao and others. Later, a summons was issued.
Rajalingamurthy cited the sinking of Medigadda’s piers in October 2023 and the visit of National Dam Safety Authority officials. He claimed that the defendant had misappropriated public funds.