Telangana High Court dismisses KTR's petition to quash FIR in Formula E case

Hyderabad: On Tuesday, January 7, 2025, the Telangana High Court dismissed the petition filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) party working president K.T. Rama Rao (KTR) seeking to quash the FIR in the Formula E race case. This ruling allows the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to continue its investigation.

The court also denied KTR's lawyers' request for a 10-day arrest protection. A copy of the order will be available by 2 p.m. that same day.

KTR, who served as the Municipal Administration Minister during the Formula E race in Hyderabad in February 2023, has been summoned by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to appear for questioning on January 6, 2025. This is part of the ongoing investigation into financial mismanagement and irregularities related to the event.

The ACB had filed an FIR on December 19, 2024, accusing KTR, former Municipal Administration Secretary Arvind Kumar, and HMDA Chief Engineer B.L.N. Reddy of criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of funds. The case is registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.

Senior Counsel T. Bala Mohan Reddy, representing IAS officer M. Dana Kishore, Principal Secretary of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, raised concerns over procedural violations in the Rs 55 crore payment made by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) during the previous government’s tenure. He alleged that the payment was made before a formal agreement was finalized, violating business rules and statutory compliance under the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act.

Mohan Reddy also suggested that KTR, as the overseeing minister, approved the payment despite these irregularities, potentially constituting a criminal breach of trust.

KTR's defense, presented by Senior Counsel A. Prabhakar Rao, denied the allegations. Prabhakar Rao argued that procedural violations do not automatically imply criminal conduct and maintained that the payments were part of an ongoing contractual obligation under an arbitration decision. He added that there was no evidence of misappropriation or dishonesty.