Raju is a kleptomaniac, i.e., he impulsively steals, which his father Narayana discovers in childhood. He takes him to Dr. Saima, who has pledged to cure it by inventing a new medicine, but in vain. Due to the disorder, Raju fails to have a girlfriend. However, his quest ends with the beautiful Tanvi, who covers his problem with various funny reasons. Narayana proceeds with the bridal connections when Tanvi's parents stipulate for her grandfather Suryanarayana's approval, and they all walk on.
Meanwhile, Suryanarayana is top-tier in the village, hates thieves, and punishes them by chopping off their hands. Frightened by it, Raju forges Narayana as a victim of kleptomania. Parallelly, a terrorist gang is in Raju's hunt since he left Raju their bomb, which was to explode for a contract of 100 crores. Upon more, Anji, Suryanarayana's past servant who has been ostracized for stealing temple jewelry, returns after 25 years as a tycoon to seek vengeance. Thus, he ruses & re-conducts theft and incriminates Suryanarayana.
Whereat, Raju takes the blame to shield his honor by admitting his infirmity when he faces the music and receives Tanvi's loath. Eventually, Anji shakes hands with the terrorists and provides the bomb in Raju's towel. Hereupon, Raju captures the heels, unveiling Anji to be a miscreant, when he steals the triggering device from the terrorists, which activates, and the gang blasts out. At last, Tanvi & her family comprehends Raju's virtue and pleads pardon. Finally, the movie ends happily with the post-credits; Raju again steals the wedding chain at the time of his marriage.
Srivathsan Nandadur of The Hindu wrote: "Sanjana Reddy’s directorial debut Rajugadu comes with a ‘been there done that’ trope of milking a protagonist’s condition to go on a comic spree. " Nandadur felt that the story lacked a major conflict point.[4] A reviewer from Sify stated that the film failed miserably and added, "It is sad to see even young female directors are treading the path of formulaic stories and screenplays that was paved by outdated male film makers."[5]
Vyas in his review for The Hans India rated the film 2.5 of 5 and wrote: "The film lacks strong scenes and excellent characterizations. The climax is a disappointment too. Though the intention of the film is good, it was not translated well."[6]The Times of India critic Neeshita Nyayapati rated the film 1/5 and called it "stiled and boring."[7]
