Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1371 (TS)

Duddilla Sridhar Babu v. State Of Telangana

2025-11-03

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

body2025
ORDER : ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C. No.26 of 2023 (Old C.C. No.675 of 2017) on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases at Hyderabad. 2. On the basis of a complaint dated 23.08.2017 filed by respondent No.2 at 13:30 hours, an FIR came to be registered on 23.08.2017 vide FIR No.162 of 2017 on the file of Police Station Basanthnagar, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 353, 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Accused No.1 is one Sridhar Babu and around 12 others are co-accused for the said offences. 3. The gist of the complaint and the FIR is that while complainant was discharging his duties as Executive Engineer, Division No.2, Kataram, and conducting proceedings of the public hearing on Kaleshwaram Project, when people were expressing their views at the proceedings in Raghavapuram Reddy Function Hall, Peddapalli, around 300 members raised slogans against Chief Minister and threw chairs and disturbed the proceedings. The District Collector and the Environmental Engineer requested the accused persons to pacify themselves and asked them to share their view(s) on the dais. Inspite of which, all the accused intervened in the proceedings and caused disturbance in discharging the duties of Government employees in respect of the Project. 4. A charge sheet came to be filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapalli, under Sections 147, 186, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court by a memo bearing USR No.120260 of 2025 that the Court of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases vide judgment dated 17.05.2025 in C.C.No.26 of 2023 acquitted accused No.1/petitioner herein and other accused under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The following is the operative portion of the judgment: “9. PW1 to PW6 turned hostile to prosecution. 10. PW7 stated that on 23-08-2017 he received Ex. P1 from PW1 and registered a case and issued FIR to all concerned. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW5 who stated to him as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW6 and LW6/Madhuraiah. He filed Alteration Memo on 23-08-2017 by altering the section from 353 IPC to 186 IPC. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW5 who stated to him as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW6 and LW6/Madhuraiah. He filed Alteration Memo on 23-08-2017 by altering the section from 353 IPC to 186 IPC. He issued notice to the accused under the provisions of 41-A Cr.P.C. and laid charge sheet on completion of investigation. 11. In the cross examination he admitted that the meeting was organized by Pollution Control Board but he did not examined the organizers of that Board and did not collected the copy of the permission granted for conducting the above said meeting. It was suggested to him that as no meeting was conducted as alleged by him, he could not collect any such permission, for which he denied. He also admitted that he did not examined either the District Collector or Environmental Engineer whose names were referred in the Ex.P1. It was suggested to him that PW1 to PW5 did not stated to him as in Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 and he did not investigated the case but did table investigation without visiting the scene of offence, for which he denied. It was suggested to him that a false case was foisted against the accused due to political environment which was prevalent at that time and deposing falsehood, for which he denied. 12. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 23-08-2017 accused who are the activists of Congress Party formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and entered into the meeting hall at Raghavapur where a meeting was going on, on the topic of Environment and Pollution about Kaleshwaram Project. Accused disturbed the meeting by throwing the chairs. Accused along with 300 members raised slogans against the Chief Minister and threw the chairs and disturbed the meeting. The District Collector and Environmental Engineer requested them, pacified them and asked them to share their views by coming on to the Dias. As accused disturbed the Government Employees in discharging their official duties, this case was registered against them. 13. To prove the above said contentions of the prosecution it examined as many as seven witnesses out of which PW1 to PW6 turned hostile to prosecution. The evidence remained on record is PW7. He admitted that he did not collected any copy of the order given for conducting the above referred meeting. 13. To prove the above said contentions of the prosecution it examined as many as seven witnesses out of which PW1 to PW6 turned hostile to prosecution. The evidence remained on record is PW7. He admitted that he did not collected any copy of the order given for conducting the above referred meeting. He admitted that personnel pertaining to Pollution Control Board organized the meeting, but he did not examined those organizers. It is the contention of the prosecution that District Collector and Environmental Engineer were also present at that meeting and tried to pacify the accused. But surprisingly neither Collector nor Environmental Engineer were examined by the Investigating Agency. No document was filed by PW7 to show that meeting was organized by Pollution Control Board at Reddy Function Hall, Raghavapur. Absolutely there is no support to the evidence of PW7 as it remained on record, without any sort of corroboration. 14. It is the allegation of prosecution that accused raised slogans against the then Chief Minister and threw chairs at the meeting which was conducted for public hearing on Kaleshwaram Project. PW7 is not the eye witness to the incident but he only investigated the case. The persons who were shown as eye witnesses to the incident turned hostile to prosecution. Hence after appreciating the evidence available on record, and after going through the statements of the witnesses and their evidence, which was recorded by the court, it was felt that the evidence lead by prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence accused were found not guilt, hence accused were acquitted. 15. In the result, Accused No.1 to 13 were found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable under Section 147, 186, 427 r/w 149 IPC. Hence Accused were acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stood cancelled and the sureties will be discharged after the lapse of appeal time. As there is no property involved in this case, no separate property order was passed.” 6. Perused the judgment in C.C.No.26 of 2023, by judgment dated 17.05.2025, accused Nos.1 to 13 have been held “NOT GUILTY”. Petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.26 of 2023, who is held “NOT GUILTY”. 7. In view of the judgment in C.C.No.26 of 2023 passed by a Competent Court, this Court is of the view that this Criminal Petition be closed. 8. Petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.26 of 2023, who is held “NOT GUILTY”. 7. In view of the judgment in C.C.No.26 of 2023 passed by a Competent Court, this Court is of the view that this Criminal Petition be closed. 8. For reasons aforesaid, the Criminal Petition stands closed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.