Violence in Punganur: High Court hears Midhun Reddy’s plea to quash FIRs

The Madras High Court on Monday heard an application filed by the counsel for former Member of Parliament M. K. Midhun Reddy seeking the quashing of several First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against him in connection with an alleged assault that took place in the town of Punganur, Andhra Pradesh, last month. The petition, which was listed under the court’s criminal jurisdiction, contended that the FIRs were registered on “frivolous grounds” and that the complainants were motivated by personal vendetta rather than any genuine grievance. The bench, comprising Justice K. V. Srinivas and Justice R. N. Patel, reserved its order and asked the parties to file written submissions within a fortnight.The incident that gave rise to the FIRs occurred on 12 May, when a crowd gathered outside a local community centre in Punganur, allegedly to protest against a scheduled political rally that Midhun Reddy was to address..

According to the police report, the protest turned violent after a group of unidentified individuals allegedly hurled stones at the convoy escorting the MP, injuring two police officers and causing damage to a police vehicle. The police filed three separate FIRs – one under sections relating to rioting, one for criminal intimidation, and a third for assault on a public servant – naming Midhun Reddy as the chief conspirator, despite the fact that he was not present at the scene when the violence erupted.Midhun Reddy’s legal team, led by senior advocate Anil Kumar, argued that the FIRs were “maliciously crafted” to tarnish the reputation of a sitting parliamentarian who has long been a vocal advocate for development projects in the Rayalaseema region. “The allegations are baseless, the evidence is non‑existent, and the witnesses have either recanted or refused to cooperate,” Kumar told the bench..

He further submitted that the complainants were members of a rival political faction that had been denied tickets in the upcoming state assembly elections, and that the FIRs were therefore an attempt to derail his political career ahead of the polls. The counsel urged the court to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to dismiss the cases outright.Representing the State, Additional Public Prosecutor S. Ramesh countered that the FIRs were filed in accordance with standard procedure following an incident that resulted in injury to police personnel and property damage. He emphasized that the investigation was ongoing and that the police had identified several individuals who allegedly acted under the direction of Midhun Reddy’s local supporters..

“The presence of a political leader does not immunise him from accountability,” Ramesh said, adding that the court’s intervention at this stage could prejudice the investigative process. He requested that the petition be dismissed and that the FIRs be allowed to proceed to trial.The hearing also touched upon the broader issue of political violence in Andhra Pradesh, a state that has witnessed a series of confrontations between rival parties during election cycles. Human rights groups have warned that the use of FIRs as a tool to settle political scores undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system..

In a written submission filed earlier this week, the Centre for Public Policy Research highlighted a “pattern of selective enforcement” that targets opposition figures while granting leniency to those aligned with the ruling establishment. The submission cited data from the National Crime Records Bureau showing a rise in politically motivated cases over the past five years, particularly in districts with high electoral stakes such as Chittoor, where Punganur is located.Legal experts observing the proceedings noted that the High Court has, in recent years, taken a proactive stance in scrutinising FIRs that appear to be lodged without sufficient prima facie evidence. Justice Srinivas, known for his detailed judgments on procedural fairness, asked the counsel for the petitioner to specify the exact grounds on which the FIRs could be deemed “frivolous”..

He remarked that the court must balance the right of an individual to protect his reputation against the State’s duty to maintain law and order. “If the allegations lack any factual foundation, the court can indeed intervene under Section 482, but the bar is high,” he said.In response, Mr Kumar cited affidavits from two of the original complainants who, he claimed, had withdrawn their statements after being threatened by local strongmen. He also presented a forensic report indicating that the vehicle damaged in the alleged assault bore no signs of impact consistent with stone‑throwing, suggesting that the damage might have been caused by a separate incident..

The defense argued that these pieces of evidence collectively undermined the credibility of the police’s narrative and warranted dismissal of the cases at the earliest stage.The bench, after hearing both sides, directed the police to submit a detailed report on the status of the investigation, including the names of all persons arrested, the nature of the evidence collected, and any forensic analysis undertaken. The court also instructed the petitioner’s counsel to file a comprehensive list of all documents and affidavits on record by 10 June. Both parties were warned that any further attempts to manipulate the judicial process could attract contempt proceedings.Observers from the media and civil society have pointed out that the outcome of this hearing could set a precedent for how courts address politically sensitive FIRs in the future..

If the High Court were to quash the FIRs, it might embolden political actors to seek judicial relief as a shield against criminal accountability. Conversely, a decision to allow the cases to proceed could reinforce the principle that no individual, irrespective of status, is above the law, but it could also be interpreted as a tacit endorsement of the police’s handling of politically charged incidents.The case is expected to be listed again in early July, when the court will consider the written submissions and the police report. In the meantime, the political atmosphere in Punganur remains tense, with local leaders from both sides warning against further escalation..

The district administration has announced heightened security measures ahead of the upcoming state assembly elections, scheduled for October, to prevent any recurrence of violence. As the legal battle unfolds, the episode underscores the delicate interplay between law, politics, and public order in a region where electoral competition often spills over into the streets..