Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1390 (TS)

Mandava Harish v. State of Telangana

2025-11-04

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
ORDER : Tirumala Devi Eada, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 & 5 in C.C.No.4989 of 2025, on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 186 and 341 read with 149 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 & 5 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State. 3. The facts of the case are that on 26.07.2023, at 13:15 hours, while the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station (complainant herein) and other staff were performing patrolling in the limits of Saifabad Police Station, they noticed some members of Police Job Aspirants , who are 5 in number, organized “Protest Programme” in front of Gate No.1 of Dr.BR Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat for condemning implementation of G.O.Ms.No.46 in Police recruitment and obstructed the duties of the Police officer and thereby caused obstruction to the free flow of traffic of the secretariat employees and wrongfully restrained the other vehicles unlawfully on the main road. When the police personnel tried to stop them, they obstructed their legitimate duties. As such, they were taken into custody. On enquiry, they came to know about the names of the petitioners. The statements of L.Ws.2 & 3, who are the eye witnesses, are recorded during the course of investigation and the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.4989 of 2025. Challenging the said proceedings, petitioners filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. There is no criminal intent. There is no unlawful assembly. They went in front of Gate No.1 of Dr.BR Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat to organize Protest Programme for condemning implementation of G.O.Ms.No.46 in Police recruitment. With regard to the police recruitment, the Government has changed the Rules after issuance of notification. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioners and others and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and others. With regard to the police recruitment, the Government has changed the Rules after issuance of notification. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioners and others and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and others. Petitioners are students and they are appearing for competitive examinations. The police implicated them with a false motive. The Investigating Officer did not record the statements of any independent witness. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Anita Thakur and others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others , [(2006) 15v SCC 525] and Mullapudi Bapi Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2024(3) ALD (Crl.) 641 (AP)] and Kothapally Mahesh and others v. State of Telangana , [Crl.P.No.3865 of 2024 dt.07.06.24] . With the said submissions, petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners along with others have raised slogans against the Government and conducted dharna in front of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat building which caused obstruction for free flow of traffic and caused inconvenience to the public. All the contentions raised by the petitioners are defenses which cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. With the said submissions, she sought to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. 6. As discussed supra, the offences against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 143 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. 7. Section 341 IPC deals with wrongful restraint. The same is extracted below: “341. Wrongful restraint.— Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. (Exception)— The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.” 8. Thus, there should be voluntary obstruction of any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. Thus, there should be voluntary obstruction of any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. In the present case, except saying that the petitioners conducted protest and raised slogans against the Government causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, they have not stated about the wrongful restraint by the petitioners. However, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of any independent witness. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of Section 341 IPC. 9. Section 353 IPC deals with assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. The same is relevant and it is extracted below. “353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.— Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Therefore, to attract the said offence, there should be assault and use of criminal force to any person being a public servant in execution of his duty as such public servant with an intention to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as public servant. In the statements of L.Ws.1 to7, there is no mention about the said obstruction or using of criminal force by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of Section 353 IPC. 10. Section 141 IPC deals with unlawful assembly. It is relevant to extract Section 141 IPC hereunder: “141. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of Section 353 IPC. 10. Section 141 IPC deals with unlawful assembly. It is relevant to extract Section 141 IPC hereunder: “141. Unlawful assembly.— An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is— (First)— To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (Second)— To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (Third)— To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (Fourth)— By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (Fifth)— By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.— An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.” Thus, there should be criminal force with an intention to obtain possession of property or to deprive any person of enjoyment of a right of way etc. In the present case, none of the witnesses, L.Ws.1 to 7 stated with regard to the same. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of Section 141 IPC. 11. Section 149 IPC deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. The same is relevant and it is extracted below. “149. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of Section 141 IPC. 11. Section 149 IPC deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. The same is relevant and it is extracted below. “149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.— If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” 12. It is relevant to note that Section 149 IPC does not create separate offence but only it declares vicarious liability of all members of unlawful assembly for committing of offence with common object as held by the Apex Court in Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Dudabhai Patel , AIR 2018 SC 2472 13. It is also relevant to note that to attract Section 149 IPC, it must be shown the criminal act to accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly. It must be within the knowledge of other members likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. When the members of assembly were aware or likely to be aware of the offence being committed in prosecution of common object, they would be liable in terms of Section 149 IPC. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in Waman v. State of Maharashtra , [ (2011) 7 SCC 295 ] . 14. It is also apt to note that common object is the main ingredient to attract the offence under Section 149 IPC. In the present case, none of the witnesses, L.Ws.1 to 4, stated about the common object. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of Section 149 IPC. 15. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335] , the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 15. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335] , the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint or in FIR. In the said judgment, the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same read as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the light of the above, continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.4989 of 2025 against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. 16. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.4989 of 2025, on the file of the learned on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in respect of petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 & 5. However, it is made clear that the proceedings in the above said C.C. may go on in respect of other accused. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. 18. Miscellaneous applications pending , if any, shall stand closed.