Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain BRS MLA KTR's Plea To Quash FIR In Formula-E Race "Scam"

The Supreme Court today (January 15) dismissed as withdrawn a Special Leave Petition filed by Bharat Rashtra Samithi MLA Kalvakuntla Taraka Ram Rao (KTR) against the Telangana High Court's order refusing to quash a First Information Report against him over the alleged Formula-E race "scam".

On January 7, the High Court stated that Rao as then Urban Development Minister was controlling the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. Thus, the body's funds which were allegedly misused, were "prima facie" entrusted to him.

FIR against Rao is filed under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent), criminal conspiracy under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) (criminal misconduct by public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale stated that it was not inclined to interfere at this stage. At the outset, the Advocate appearing for Rao argued that is a case of "political vendetta" and no ingredients of Section 13 of the PC Act arose in this case. He said: "There case is not that he got 1rs. The whole charge is this: That there was a project and it was for racing and for that, there was a sponsor...that sponsor defaults. Previous year, we made 700 crores. He wants to save the event. The charge is that he paid them only. Nobody says he took a rupee."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State of Telangana, opposed the plea and stated that the same cannot be entertained at this stage in light of the further investigation in this matter.

After the bench expressed disinclination, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition.

Rejecting Rao's contention that ingredients of Section 409 are not made out as there is no entrustment of public money by elected legislators, Justice K. Lakshman of the High Court said that the petitioner had allegedly abused his authority to misappropriate Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority's (HMDA) money. It observed: "Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was using public money of which there can be no entrustment. HMDA is a body corporate which can own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued. The allegations in the FIR clearly state that it was HMDA's money which was misused. It is not in dispute that HMDA is under the control of MA & UD Department. The petitioner, being the Minister of MA & UD Department, has control over the HMDA, he has approved note before signing of the agreement. Therefore, prima facie, the funds belongs to HMDA were entrusted with the petitioner".

Case Details: KALVAKUNTLA TARAKA RAM RAO v. THE STATE ACB CIU HYDERABAD AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 422/2025