Patnam Narender Reddy Files Petition to Avoid Arrest in New FIR

 Hyderabad: BRS Kodangal former MLA Patnam Narender Reddy, who is lodged in Cherlapally prison since November 13 in connection with the attack on the Vikarabad collector and revenue officials at Lagcharla, has filed a fresh criminal petition seeking a direction not to arrest him in the new FIR registered by the Bomraspet police of Vikarabad district.

This FIR was registered on a complaint by constable Rathod Kanniah, on the ground that on October 25, prior to the Lagcherla incident, one Avuti Shekar, president of Dudyal mandal Congress, who was on his way to attend the public hearing in Lagcherla, was confined in the gram panchayat office by farmers and landowners, his car was damaged under the assumption that he was responsible for the land acquisition.

Though, his name does not figure in this FIR, petitioner Narender Reddy apprehended that he may get arrested on this count. The writ petition will be heard by Justice K. Lakshman on Tuesday.

In another petition filed by Narender Reddy seeking quash of three FIRs registered on the Lagcherla incident for inciting and provoking landowners and farmers from parting their lands to for TIIC, the court has reserved orders.

T. Rajnikanth Reddy, additional advocate general, informed the court that though the petitioner was arrested in FIR. No. 153/2024, the other two FIRs, 154 and 155, were similar in nature could be clubbed together. He stated that the incidents occurred on different dates, which was why other FIRs were also raised.

Justice Lakshman questioned Rajnikanth Reddy about the provision of law under which the police had registered so many FIRs an offence. He took serious note of the lackadaisical attitude of the police in raising multiple FIRs for the same offence, without even giving a complaint (by writing a complaint on their own) in the police station.

The judge, while going through the three FIRs, observed that the content of the complaint was the same, whereas the complainants were different, including the MRO, DSP (DCRB) and the station writer. The judge found fault with the lethargic attitude of the deputy SP and the MRO, who made a complaint but could not write out a complaint on their own, whereas the station writer, who wrote the complaint, retained the content.

Justice Lakshman observed that the station writer did not even change the content of the complaint, when two different officers gave a complaint on different occasions.

“Nakal marne ko bhi, akal ki jaroorat hai (even to copy, you need brains), he said while also observing that the complainants, who are educated and can write a complaint, left it to the station writer, who raised a complaint for them.