Hyderabad: The single bench of Justice Kunuru Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday adjudicated two criminal petitions filed by Siddipet MLA T Harish Rao, who is A-1 and Radhakishan Rao, former DCP (retd), who is A-2, in the second phone-tapping case registered by the Panjagutta police on a complaint made by de facto complainant G Chakradhar Goud.

Dama Seshadri Naidu, senior counsel, who was as a judge of the United High Court of AP, while arguing the case for Harish Rao, while advancing his arguments disputed the antecedents of Goud stating that the State government is supporting a person, who has a criminal background. He informed the court that 11 criminal cases were pending against him since 2006, including rape, fraud and other offences.

The government in its counter supports the complainant, saving him from all criminal cases, substantiating its contention for delay in registering the FIR stating that the delay has been sufficiently explained in the counter-affidavit.

The counsel read out all sections under which the FIR No 1205/2024 was registered against Harish Rao, 120b, 386, 409, 506 R/w 34 IPC 8666 IT Act 2008. He said there are no ingredients in the FIR, which attract the petitioner; there is no iota of extortion; there is no inducement of property; there is no criminal intimidation. The complaint is vague, vindictive and the motive is to seek vengeance against the petitioner.

The only ground on which the complainant stands firm is that he has received an email and a message from the “Apple Company”, which says that his phone was tapped; such messages have been received by many people.

Interrupting his arguments, Justice Lakshman said he too had received such a message from the company, which has no relevance.

The counsel also informed the court that the de facto complainant says that he has been doing charity by helping farmers, supporting them with financial aid during distress and distributed Rs. 2.5 crore, whereas in his election affidavit the value of assets, cash, runs only into lakhs. Where did the complainant get such huge money, until and unless, he has resorted to some illegal activities, like extortion. To substantiate his contention, he cited the 11 criminal cases registered against Goud.

Siddharth Luthra, Senior SC counsel, arguing for the government, vehemently opposed contention of Naidu, stating phones of the complainant and his family members were tapped by the SIB Police at the insistence of Harish Rao, who used his post to harass Goud ith help of Radhakishan Rao, who was DCP Task Force during the BRS Regime. All sections included in the FIR don’t have ingredients for registration of FIR.

Due to paucity of time, the judge adjourned both the criminal petitions for hearing to February 19. He extended the interim protection to Harish Rao and Radhakishan Rao from “arrest” until February 19. The judge heard the petitions seeking directions to call for records in FIR and quash it (offence U/s. 120b, 386, 409, 506 R/w 34 IPC 8666 IT Act 2008).