The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Mr. Mahesh Mamindta' leamed courrsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shalini Saxena learned counsel r':presenting Mr. Palte Nageswara Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor appearing on behalfof rcsPondent No.l - State'

2. Ihis Criminat Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit4 2023 (for shon 'BNSS')' to quash the proceedings in C'C' No'455 of 2024 pending on the file ol thc Special Judiciat Magistrate of First Class for (lases under Prohihition Act (Lxcise Court), Hyderabad'

3. fhe petitioner herein is anaigned as accust:d No'l in the albresaid C.C. The offences alteged against hinr are under Sections - 186. i5l. 427 and 290 readwith 34 IPC' '1. On the complaint lodged by respondent Nc'2 - Tahsildar' Choutuppal Mandal' Police, Chouhrppal Police lltation have re gistered a case in Crime No'321 of 2O2l against the pctitioner and others lor thc aloresaid offences' As per the r:port given by e 'I t a o a h I ) t 2 KLJ Crl-P, No.l427 of 2025 respondent No.2, dated 27.07.2021 to the police, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are as follows: i. Pursuant to the Govemment directions, Distribution Center was arranged at SMR Convention, Lakkaram Village ol Choutuppal Mandal, for distribution of .New Fair pncc Cards Programme' in respect of Choutuppal and Narayanpur Mandals lt. The Minister for power, telangana Shte, Jilla parisha<i Chairman, District Collector, the petitioner herein beine thc MLA of Munugodu, Municipal Chairman, MMps ol. Mandals, ZPTs, MpTCs, Sarpanches, Members, Councilors and beneficiaries were affended the said programme. While addressing the programme by the Minister. rhc petitioner herein and other accused persons who sat rn rhc side of podium dragged the mike from the hands ol rhe Minister, quarreled and created tension in the meeting. Some unknown persons made hues and cries and damagcd the chairs and came to dais.

5. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the policc Choutuppal Police Sation, registered the aforesaid crimc. Durine l I I I I I :i 3 KI-J Crl.P. No.l427 of2025 the course of investigation, the Investigating Offrcer r,3corded the

statements of respondent No.2 as LW.l, IvIr. pandula J_ingaiah, Mr. Uppu Rajesh and Mr. Pasham Shiva as LWs.2 to 4 as they are eye_ r.,r'itnesses, Mr. Rasham Shivakumar and Mr. Sk.Saidulu as LW.5 and LWs.6 as they are pancy'r witnesses to the subject crime.

6. Afler completion of investigation, the tnvestigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and others for the aforesaid offences and leamed Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petirioner herein and others vrde C.Cl. No.92 of

2022. l-ater it was transferred to the Court of Sper:irnl Judicial Magistratc of l:irst Class for Cases under prohibition Act (Excise Court), f{1'derabad. and the aforcsaid C.C. was re-nurnbered as C.C. No.455 of2024.

7. Challenging rhe said proceedings in C.C. No.455 of 2024, the petitioncr filed rhe prcsent criminal petition cont:nding as follows: i) Ihc peririoner was implicated falsely in the subject crime based on vague and general allegations. :t 4 KLJ Crl.P. No.l427 of2025 ii) The aforesaid complaint is nothing but polirically motivated one, and it amounts to abuse of process o[ law. iii) The complaint lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. i") The charge sheet discloses that unknown persons made cries and vigils and damaged the chairs. Thc police did not seize any incriminating material to establish the role of petitioner in damaging the property. v) The Investigating Officer did not examine other w.itnesses and the Officers on the dais.

8. Whereas. counter was filed by the prosecution contending that the pctitioner failed to make out any ground to quash thc procecdings. The present petition is filed with false and baselcss allcgations and. therefbre, sought to dismiss the same.

9. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is to be noted that whether the petitioner is entitled for quashment of the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. or not? One of the contenrions raised by leamed counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioncr 5 KL) CrL P. No.t127 of2025 I being Member of Legislative Assembly comes under the definition of 'public servant' as defined under Section - 2l of IPC and, therefore, sanction is necessary before laying charge sheet and to prosecute the petitioner, Member of Legislative Assenrtrly. Perusal of record would reveal that the Investigating Ofhr:er without obtaining sanction to prosecute the petitioner laid the t:harge sheet.

10. In the tight of the above, it is apt to note r-hat Section - 2l of IPC deats with 'public servant' and the samt' is extracted hereunder: "21. "Public servant".-The words "publ:c servant" denote a person lalling under any of ttte descriptions hereinafter following, namely:- First (Ornittcd) Second.--l:.very Commissioned Oflicer in tlLe Military'. Naval or Air Forces; Third. Every Judge including any per;cn empou,cred hy law to discharge. whether hy himself or as a member of any body of persons, any ad-judicatory functions: Fourth. Evcry ofticer of a Court of Jus.ice including a liquidator. receiver or commissioncr rvhose dut; it is. as such ofTicer, to investigat( or repon on any mafter of law or fact, or to makr:, authenticate, or kcep any document. or to t*e charge or dispose of any property, or to exec ul.e -7 i ! 6 KLJ Crl.P. No.l127 of2025 any judicial process, or to administer any oath or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court and every person specially authorised by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties; Fifth.-Every juryman, assessor, or member of a panchayat assisting a Court of Justice or public servant: Sr;rh.-Every arbitrator or other person to whom t any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court of Justice, or by any other competent public authority; Seventh.-Every person who holds any offrce by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in conftnement; Eighth.-Every officer of the Govemment whose duty it is. as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information ofoffences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public healttr, safety or convenrence: Ninth.-.-F-very officer whose duty it is as such otlrcer. to take. receive, keep or expend any properry on behalf of the Govemment, or to make any survey. assessment or contract on behalf of the Govemment. or to execute any revenue- process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Covemment, or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Govemment, or to prevent the infiaction of any ,/, /':/ I I 7 Kt,J Cr .P No.1427 of 2025 law for the protection ofthe pecturiary interest:r of the Govemment; Tenth.-Every oflicer whose duty it is, as srtch officer, to take, receive, keep or expend lny prop€rty, to make any survey or assessment ol lo levy any rate or tax for any secular comnlon purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district; Eleventh.-Every person who holds any offict, in virnre of which he is empowered to prepitr(1, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll ol lo conduct an election or part olan election; Twelfth.-Every person- (.r) in the service or pay of the Govemmenl <tr remunerated by lees or commission for ttre performance of any public duty by tlLe Govemment: (b) in the service or pay of a local authorit',. a corporation established by or under a Central. Provincial or State Act or a Govemmenl comp.rn)' as defined in section 617 of the Companies .rct. 19s6 (1 of l9s6)."

11. In the present case. the offences a[[ege,l against the petitioner are under the provisions of tPC, but nJl under the provisions of the Prevention o[ Corruption Act. lhere is need of i i ! I t i : i 8 KLJ Crl.P. No-1427 of2025 obtaining sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

12. In R.S. Nayak v. A.R Antulayr, the Hon,ble Supreme Court unequivocally held that Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) do not fall within the ambit of ,,public servant,, as defined under Secrion 2l of the Indian penal Code, 1g60. The Court drew a distinction between holders of public office and persons statutorily authorized to discharge public duties, observing that merely performing public functions does not ipso focto render an MLA a public servant under [pC.

13. This position was later discussed in Abhay Singh Chautala v. CBI2, wherein the Apex Court took note of earlier ruling and held that the obscrvations made in A.R. Antulayr were not merely obiter dicta but constituted binding precedent on the issue. The Apex Court categorically declined to heat the status of MLAs as public servants under Section _ 2l of IpC as a peripheral remark, thereby reinforcing thc authoritative value of the declaration madc in A.R. Antulayr and maintaining consistency in judicial interprctarion. . I9E4 2 SCC 18] . 20tI7SC('t{l I I 1 I * r I I I I I t I I i ! '7 i

14. Relevant paragraph No.67 in A.R- Antulal'r is extracted 9 KLJ (lr .t' No.l427 of2025 as under: "67.Having meticulously examined the submission from diverse angles as presented to us, it appears ttnt M.L.A. is not a public servant within the meaning of the expression in cl. (l2Xa), cl. (3) and cl.(7) ofSec. 2l IPC."

15. Relevant paragraph Nos.32 and 33 in 1.bhay Singh Chautala2 are extracted as follows: "32. We must point out at this junchrre that in Anhrlay case [(1984) 2 SCC tE3 : 1984 S( C Gn) n2l the Court first went on to decidc the basic question that if the accused did not continue with the office that he had allegedll abused on the day cognizance was taken, th':n there was no requirement of sanction. l l is finding was given as the complainant in tt'at case had canvassed in the backdrop ol' trc judgment of the trial court discharging trc accused holding him to b€ a public servant. [' rc trial court had held that in the absence of su:h sanction, the accused was entitled to -rc discharged. The complainant filed a urit petition against this order. This Court hto permitted to file a criminal revision against llt l I E i I - l0 KLJ Crl.P. No-1427 of2025 order of leamed Special Judge perhaps being of the opinion that the writ petition did not lie and ultimately this Court transfened the criminal revision against the trial court's judgment here. The complainant, therefore, had specifically and basically raised the point that since the accused had ceased to hold the office of Chief Minister on the date of cognizance, there was no question of any sanction and that was the main issue which was decided in Antulay case [(1984) 2 SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 172] as the basic issue by way of Question (b).

33. We, therefore, do not rhink the finding given in Antulay case [(1984) Z SCC 183 : 1984 SCC (Cri) l72l was in any manner obiter and requires reconsideration."

16. In view ol the above discussion and the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein comes under the purview of 'public servant' as defincd under Section - 2l of IPC is untenable.

17. The oflences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections - 186, 353, 427 and 290 read with 34 of IPC and the same are extracted hereunder t KI-J Crl.t. No.l427 of2025 "Section - 186: Obstructing public servant: in discharge of public functions- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge o1'his public flrnctions, shall be punished with imprisorunent of either description for a temr which may ext,lnd to three months, or with frre which may extend 10 five hundred rupees, or with both." "Section - 353: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. Wroever assaults or uses criminal force to any person b:irg a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant or with intent to prevent or det(:r that person from discharging his duty as such public st:nzant, or in consequence of anyhing done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public sewan! shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." "Section - 427: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees- Whoever commits misc:hief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount i f tifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonrnent of either description for a term which may extend o two years, or with fine, or with bottl" "Section - 290: Punishment for public nuisarrcc in cases not otherwise provided for. Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punisha:le by t2 KL,J Crl.P. No.l427 of 2025 this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees."

18. Thus, Section - 1E6 of IPC deals with 'obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions. In view of the same, the person obstructed must be a public servant as defined under Section - 21 of IPC. In the present case, as discussed above, the allegation against the petitioner is that while the Electriciry Minister addressing the programme in SMR Convention, Lakkaram Village of Choutuppal Mandal, for distrihution of 'new fair price cards', the petitioner and others, who sat on the side of podium dragged the mike from the hands of Minister, quarreled and thereafter created tension in the meeting. Some unknown persons made cries and vigils and damaged the chairs and came io dais. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner herein himself dragged the mike lrom the hands olMinister. Further, it is also mentioned in the charge sheet that some unknown persons made cries and vigils and damaged the chairs and came to dais. The Investigating Officer neither examined those unknown persons, nor mentioned their names. This itself shows that there is no evidence as to who caused damage to the chairs etc. LWs.l to 4 I q iI t 5 E E E j, 13 KI,J Crl.t'. No.l427 of 2025 said to be eye-witnesses examined by the prosecutiorr rlid not state with regard to the names of such persons referred to :Ls 'unknown'. Therefore, the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of Sr:ction - 186 ol IPC.

19. With regard to offence under Section - 35.1 of IPC, to invoke Section - 353 of IPC, there must be physical al3gression or threat that causes apprehension of harm. 'Criminrll force' is detined under Section - 350 of IPC. It says intent ionalll' using force knowing it will likely cause fear or injury. A.s discussed above. the contents of complaint and charge sheet d,r not disclose rr ith regard to criminal force being used by the petrtioner herein. Irvcn the aforesaid prosecution witresses did not de;rose on that direction. Therefore, the charge sheet lacks the inl3redients of Section - 353 of IPC also.

20. With regard to Section - 427 of lPC, Ser:tion - 425 of IPC deals with 'mischief and it says intentional or knowing dcstruction or change of property and that with the intent to cause rlrongful loss or damage to another. In view of the same, there must be a deliberate intention or knowledge to cause h.arm. [n the present case, as discussed above, the contents of tomplaint and --1 . i ! t : E * t ? * E t t I I I 14 KLJ Crl.P. No.l427 of2025 charge sheet do not disclose as to who caused the damage to the chairs etc., except mentioning 'unknown persons'. Therefore, the charge sheet lacks the ingredients of this offence also

21. With regard to Section - 290 of IPC, it deals with 'punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for'. Section - 268 of IPC deals with the dehnition of 'public nuisance', and it says that a person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy propcrty in the viciniry, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. In the case on hand, there is no common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or people in general. The nuisance must affect the public at large, not just speciiic individuals. Mere personal disputes or private acts of nuisancc in a meeting held in a Convention Hall do not fall under Section - 268 of lPC. The nuisance must extend to the public or an identifiable section of the community, such as creatmg a riot, tratfic jam, or endangcring public safety. As discussed above, contents of the complaint. l5 KT,J Cd.l']. No.l427 of2025 charge sheet and statements of LWs.l to 4 lack the ingredients of Section - 268 of IPC.

22. In State of flaryana v. Bhajan Lal3, th: Apex Coun cautioned that porver of quashing should be e>lercised ver v* sparingll' antl circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complain! quashing of wtir:h is sought, Court cannot cmbark upon an enqulry as to the rr:liability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in ttLe FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgmrnt laid down certain gu idclines/parameters for exercise of powers urLder Section - 482 ol(1r.1,.C.. which are as under: "( I ) Where the allegations made in the fir.sl intbrmation report or the complaint, even il' thcr are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute anr offence or make out a case against the accused. (2 ) Where the allegations in the fust infbrmation report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifring an investigati(,n r. (1992)Supp. I S('C ll5 l6 KI,J Crl.P. No.l427 of2025 by police omcers under Section 156(l) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontoverted 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 cogniz-ble offence but constitute only a non-copizable offence, no investigation is permitted.by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ofthe Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentll. improbable on the basis of which no prudenr person can ever reirch 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 concemed (under which a criminal proceeding is hstituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and./or wherc t7 KLJ Cr..P. No.l427 of2025 there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concemed, providing effrcacious redress for t1e grievance of the aggrieved PartY. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifeslll' attended with mala fide and,/or where tht: proceeding is maliciously instituted with att ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on thr: accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge-" The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.

23. In the prcsent case, as discussed above, tht: contents of complaint an<i statements of LWs.l to 4 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid oftcnccs. 'fherefbre' without considering the said aspects' the lnvestigating Officer laid the charge sheet againsl the petitioner hercin. 'fherelbrc. continuation of the proceedings in C'C' No'455 of 2024 against the pctitioner is an abuse of proct:sl; of law and they cannot go on. I'hus. the proceedings in the saitl rlC are liable to be quashed.

24. In view of the afbresaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the present Criminll Petition is I I l : I i \ I : : I I 1 I I I i l8 KLJ Crl.P. No.l427 of2025 allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No'455 of 2024 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein - accused No' l alone' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed' SD/. A.JAY T REGI ASREE STRAR ASSIS /TTRUE COPY'I S CTTON OFFICER To, 1 The Soecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class for cases under prohibition Act ' ii'i"ItL co,rt) HYderabad' 2 The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Ramannapet' 3 The Station House Officer' Choutuppal Police Station' Rachakonda' 4 One CC to SRI MAHESH MAMINDLA Advocate [OPUC] sEcuroR' High court ror the state or ; ir*t:,f,:f,"?j,r"#:3$ff 6 Two CD CoPies GR/Pst \r HIGH COURT DATED:251O712025 ORDER CRLP.No.1427 o12025 ( * l) I - rE S14 Ic 2210r/E C) <i' * P,rrCnf-O ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q. -dnA \o- iOf'l-'Z