The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ Accused No.s.1,2,3,5,8,10.11.13,14,17,24,25,28,29,30,32,33,34,36,37,39, in CC No 473 ot 2023 on the frre of the r Addr. Metropolitan sessions Judge at Nampa y, Hyderabad Distnct f or the offences under Section 1$:141 , 341',44i, 152,188,269 (1w149 of rPC, Secrion 51(1xb) of Disaster Management act 2005 & Section 3 of Epidemrc Drseases Act 1g97 in the interest of justice o l.A. NO: 2OF 2o25 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused No.s.1 , 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11. 13, 14,',t7, 24, 25, 28. 29. 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39 in CC No. 473 of 2023 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally' Hyderabad District for the offences under Sections 143,147,341 ,447 ,152,188,269 rlw149 o'f lPC, Section 51(1Xb) of Disaster Management act 2005 and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1897 pending disposal of the criminal petition in the interest of justice and equity This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Mr. Gummala Bhasker Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel representing Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 .

2. The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners to quaslr the proceedings in C.C. No.473 of 2023 pending on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad

3. The petitioners herein are anaigned as accused Nos.l to 2l in the aloresaid C.C. -['he ol'fences alleged against them are under Sections -14). 141 ,341,141 .152, 188, 269 read with 149 of IPC, Section 51 ( I ) (b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 ( for short, 'DM Act'), and Section 3 ol'Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The aforesaid Sections are akin to the Secrions ol- the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) which are as lollows:- IPC. I4I l+-l l+6 117 \ BNS 189 189 l9l l9r 2 KI,J Crl-P. No l?51of2025 a, ts2 166 269 339 341 441 447 r95 223 271 126 t26Q) 329 32e (3)

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2021 on credible information that the BJP Members stagrng a dhama at GHMC Head Office with a demand to remove the illegal constructions on NAIAs and for the cleaning NALAs in GHMC Limits, 2nd respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad along with other police personnel were on bandobasthu duties. At about 12.05 hrs, all ol a sudden, around 150 BJP Members including the petitioners herein/ A.1 to A.2l obstnrcted the public on road in front of GHMC Head Office, without any permission and without following COVID guidelines. Out of them, A.1 is T. Raja Singh, MLA, A.2 is Chinthala Ramchandra Reddy, Ex-MLA and A.3 is NVSS Prabhakar, Ex-MLA and others are also holding different cadres in the BJP party. Despitc their request to stop dhama, accused persons did not heed their words and they used force on the police. Then, 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the Police, Saifabad Police Station, who in tum, registered a case in Cr.No.289 of 2021 for the aforesaid oflences 3 KLJ Crl.P. No.l753 of2025 and after completion of investigation, the Investigating OfEcer laid charge sheet before I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Nampally, Hyderabad, who numbered the same as C.C.No.473 of

5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS: 1 The petitioners were lalsely implicated in the present case basing on false allegations. The Investigating Officer has fited charge sheet in routine

11. manner but he has not conducted investigation properly. 111 The contents of the complaint and statements of the witnesses lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. IV. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences alleged without applying judicial mind. Continuation of proceedings in the present CC is nothing but abuse of process There is no prima /acie evidence on record to support the case of prosecution. With the said submissions, they sought to quash the proceedings in the present CC. 4 KI.J Crl P. No.l753 of2025 o

6. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF'OF PROSECUTION: i) Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. The contentions raised by the petitioners are triable issues to be considered by the trial Court only after full-fledged trial, but not at this stage. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of5 witnesses and on consideration ofthe same only, he has laid charge sheet against the petitioners. The defence taken by the petitioners may not be considered in the present petition fited under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. ii) With the aforesaid submissions' leamed counsel representing tearned Public Prosecutor, sought to dismiss the present petition.

7. FINDING OF THE COURT: i) As stated supra, in the complaint dated 18.06.2021, 2"d respondent Sub lnspector of Police, stated that on 18.06.2021 on credible information that the BJP Members staglng a dhama at GHMC Head Office rvith a demand to remove the illegal constructions on 5 KLJ Crl.P. No.l753 of2025 NALAs and for the cleaning NALAs in GHMC Limits, he along with other police personnel were on bandobasthu duties. At about 12.05 hrs, all of a sudden, around 150 BJP Members including the petitioners herein/ A.1 to A.21 obstructed the pubtic on road in front of GHMC Head Office, without any permission and without following COVID guidelines. Despite their request to stop dhama, petitionerVaccused did not heed their words and they used force on the police. ii) On receipt of the said complaint, dated 18.06.2021, police Saifabad, have registered a case in Cr.No.289 of 202 I against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. iii) During the course of investigation, rhe Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of2nd respondent - Sub lnspector of police as L.W.l, Police Constables of P.S. Saitabad, as t_.Ws.2 and 3, Woman Constable of the said Potice Station as L.W.4. [t is relevant to note that in the charge sheet it has been spccificaltl mentioned that despite the efforts made to secure eye witncsses. no one came forward to speak about the incident. LW.7 is the Sub lnspector o[ police, who issued the FIR, LW.8 is the firsr Invesrigating Officer, L.W.9 is second Inte.stigating Officer who filed charge sheet. l-hus, it is clear 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.t753 of2025 that there is no independent witness examined by the police to speak about the acts committed by the accused attracting the aforesaid offences. iii) In view of the above rival submissions, it is apposite to extract the relevant provisions of IPC, ED Act and DM Act which are as under: INDIAN PENAL CODE "1E8. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully cmpowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobcys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tcnds to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction. annoyance or injury, to any Person Iawfutty employed. be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupecs, or with both; and if such disoMience causes ot trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or aftay, shall be punished with imprisonnient of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupces. or rvith both. Explanation.-tt is not necessary that the offender should intend to producc harm. or contcmplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sulficient that he knows of the order 7 KL,J Crl P. No.l753 ot2025 which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or rs likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lar*firlly empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."

269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-Whoever unlawfirlly or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, tikety to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine. or with both."

141. Unlawful assembly-An assembly of five or more persons is designated an 'lurlar+firl 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 Govemment 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 anv lcgal process: or Third.-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass. or orhcr offence; or Fourth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession ofany propcrty, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right ol wa_v, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right ol which he is in possession or enioyment, or to enlorce any right or supposed right; or 8 KT-J Crl.P. No.l75l ofz)25 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.

143. Punishment.- Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 146. Rioting.-Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereoe, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty ofthe offence of rioting.

147. Punishment for rioting.- Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a tcrm which may extend to two years, or with fine. or with both.

152. Assautting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot, etc.-whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his dutl as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlautul assembly, or to suppress a riot or affra1', or uses. or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public scrvant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description lor a term which may extend to three years, or u'ith fine. or u ith both.

339. Wrongful restraint.--Whoevcr voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person lrom proceeding in any direction in which that pcrson has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. ,/ 9 KL,J Crl.P. No 1753 of2025

341. Punishment for wrongfirl restraint.- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. or with both.

441. Criminal trespass.-Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit ''criminal trespass"

447. Punishment for criminal trespass.- Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to thee months, with fine or which may extend to fivc hundred rupees, or with both. 152. Assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot, etc.- Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the dischargc of h is dury as such public servant in endeavouring to disperse an unlarvful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or I thrcatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such pub[c servhnt, shall be punished with imprisonment of cirher desciiption for a term which may extend to three ycars. or u,ith line. or with both. l0 KLJ Crl P. No.lTJl of2025 EPIDEMIC DTSEASES ACT

3. Penatty.{l) Any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of lE6o). (2) Whoever,- (i) commits or abets the commission of an act of violence against a healthcare service personnel; or (ii) abes or cause damage or loss to any property, shall be Punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months, but which ma1" extend to five years, and with finc, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees. (3) Whoever, while commining an act of violence against a healthcare service personne[, causes grievous hurt as defined in scction 120 oi the Indian Penal Code (45 ol t860) to such person. shall be punished with imprisonmenl lbr a term which shall not be less than six months. hut which may extend to seven years and 1vl1h [ins. rvhich shall not be less than one lakh rupees. but rvhich may extend to five lakh rupees." I l1 KL,J Crl.P- No.l75l of2025 DISASTERMANAGEMENTACT "51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.- Whoever, without reasonable cause- (a) obstructs any offtcer or employee of the Central Govemment or the Statc Govemment, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his functions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Govemment or the State Govemment or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both. and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable u'ith imprisonment lor a term which maY extend to two years." iv) ln view of the above, the legislative intent behind Section - 195 Cr.P.C.,is that an individual should not face criminal prosecution t2 KI.,J Crl P No l?53 of2o2i instituted upon insuffrcient grounds by person actuated by malice or frivolity of deposition and to save the time of the court being wasted by endless prosecution. [n the absence of complaint by the public servant concemed under Section - 195 Cr-P.C., the offence under Section - 1 88 of IPC against accused cannot be sustained' v) In order to convict any person for commission of oflence punishable under Section - 188 IPC, the Court has to satisfu itselfthat the accused had not only violated the order promulgated by a public servant but also the accused had actual knowledge of issuance of such order. In the case on hand, there is no whisper in the charge sheet that the accused had knowledge ofthe order. vi) In Bhoop Singh Tyagi v' Stater, the Delhi High Court hetd that a person booked under Section - l88of IPC must have actual knowledge of public servant's order requiring him to do or abstain lrom doing some act. It was further hetd that acquiring or gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite and any proof ol general notification promulgated by a public servant would not satisry the requirernent' ' . 1oo2 cn.L.t. 2872 l3 KL,J Crl.P. No.1753 of2025 vii) In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor2 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 ol IPC, the learned Single Judge held as under: "5 ) Even if the allegation that the petitioner road junctions conducted public meetings at thre€ contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is truc, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 186l could have been given only by thc Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent ol Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated. Seclion 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this rcgard has to be made by the public servant concernod or somc other person to whom such a prrblio scrvant is administratively subordinate to errable any Court to take cognizance ofan offence under Section t 88 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ln the present case. the charge sheet was filed by the Sub lnspector of Police, who could not have bccn the authority to grant permission for the public mecting and therefore, the complaint/charge r. ('rinrrnal I'ctiti,rn No.-5ill oil009. dccided on l'l.09.2009 l4 KI-.J Cd P. No.l75l of2025 sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 2E3 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section lE8 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at thrce road junctions or obstruction to the traffrc could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any pubtic way is concemed which can also be covered by Section 283 of the lndian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, whcn the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering lor that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the taffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary gttilty mens reQ to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences allegcd can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any vieu'. the complaint/charge sheet being in violation ol Section 195 (l) (a) ofCode of Criminal Proccdure. has to fail. l5 KL,J Crl.P. No.l753 of2025 As the complaint has failed due to its 7) unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the l't accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition." viii) In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District3 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao2 and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana r'. Bhajan Lala, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions ol the Code or the concerned Act (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 the concemed Act, providing elficacious remedy to redress the grievance ol the party, a leamed Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad lor the States of Telangana and Andhm Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. [t further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission r. Criminal Petrrron No.Iil.l8ot 2016.decidcd on 26.l0.lOl6 o. 1t99:1 Supp I SCC li,s l6 KL,J Crl P No l75l0f2025 o under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint hled by V.R.O. and it is against the purPort of Section - I95 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. ix) In the case on hand, the police did not mention in the charge sheet that the petitioners herein had knowledge of the order promulgated by the public servant. Further, as already discussed above, the Investigating Officer has not even examined any independent witness to show that the petitioners did not wear any mask and that they did not maintain physical distance of three feet etc., and that on account of their acts, the innocent people gathered at one place causing chance of spreading Corona Virus to the society' x) It is relevant to note that G.O.Ms. No'13 would reveal that it was issued by the Govemment of Telangana in exercise of the powers conferred under Section - 2 of the E'D' Act, framing certain regulations called as 'The Tetangana Epidemic Diseases (COVID- l9) Regulations, 2020'. Clauses - 16 and 17 of the regulation in the said G.O. are relevant, which are as under: " 16. Any person, institution, organization violating anl provision of these Regulations shall be deerned to have committed an offence punishable t7 KI-J Crl.P. No.l753 of2025 under section 188 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). The empowered officers may penalize any pemon, institution, organization found violating provisions of these Regulations or any further orders issued by Government under these Regulations.

17. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under these Regulations." xi) In continuation of the said G.O.Ms.No.13, the State Govemrnent has also issued G.O.Ms.No. 14, dated 23.03.2020, framing some more regulations to ensure social distancing to restrict the spread of COVID-19, to be tbllowed by atl Shops, establishments etc. In the said G.O., it is also mentioned that violation of the social distancing norms shall be punishable under Sections - 188, 269 and 270 of IPC. xii) A perusal of the G.O.Ms.No. I 16, dated 30.05.2021 would reveal that it was issued in exercise of powers conferred under the Disaster Management Act,2005, on account of pandemic situation, the Govemment has extended the lockdown with certain modifications across the State of Telangana from 31.05.2021 to 09.06.2021 by issuing d,iqlctives to the concemed to implement the instructions l8 KL,J Crl.P. No 1753 of 2025 therein strictly. Even in the said G.O., instruction Nos'l I and 12 under the caption "General Instructions" is relevant to extrac! which are as under: "ll. Any violation of the aforesaid instructions shall result in prosecution under Sectirms 5l to 60 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 of tPC as well as other applicable laws.

12. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under these regulations." xiii) In view of the above, the contention of the petitioners that they have staged dhama for the cause of public only and, thus, their act would not amount to have commifted any offenoe under Sections - 188, 269 oi IPC and so also under Section - 3 of E.D. Act and Section - 5l of D.M. Act, is sustainable' xiv) Moreover, Section - 3 of the E.D. Act envisages that any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shalt be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of IPC. This Court has already held that the petitioners have not committed any olfence, much less the offences under Section - 188 of IPC. t9 KL,J Crl.P. No.l753 of2025 xv) Section - 5l (b) of the D.M. Act prescribes punishment for obstruction, etc, whoever, without reasonable cause rellses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Govemment or the State Govemment or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. xvi) In the present case, there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the allegation in respect of the offence punishable under Section - 5l (b) of the D.M. Act cannot be sustained against the accused. xvii) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per Section 60 of the DM Act, 2005, the Police cannot register a case on the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent has to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. belore the leamed Magistrate. Without considering the same, on the complaint of lnd respondent, Police Saifabad, have registered the aforesaid crirne and learned 20 KI-J Crl.P. No.l753 of2025 Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 5t(b) of DM Act. xviii) In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to extract Section 60 of the DM Act:-

60. Cognizance of offences -No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made bY- (a)the National Authority, the State Authority, the Cental Govemment, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Government, as the case maY be; or (b)any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in th" -u*". prescribcd. of the allegcd offence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Govemmcnt. the Stat€ Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as aforesaid'

8. With regard to the other offences alleged against the petitioners herein, as stated above, Section 143 of IPC deals with punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly, Section 147 deals with punishmcnt lbr rioting, Section 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongful restraint, Section 447 of IPC deals with punishment for criminal trespass and Section I 52 of IPC deals with assaulting or obstructing public servant in discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an rmlawful 2t KL,J Crl.P. No 1753 ot2025 assembly, or to suppress a riot or afEay, or uses, or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant.

9. To attract punishment for the offence of unlawful assembly, there should be common object of the persons composing assembly for the aforesaid purposes. In the complaint dated 18.06.2021, statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 lacks the aforesaid ingredients. Therefore, proceedings in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners for the offence under Section 143 ofIPC cannot go on.

10. As per Section 146 of IPC, there should be use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly or by a member thereof in prosecution of common object of such assembly. ll. In the present case, the same are lacking. None of the witnesses spoke about the same against the petitioners herein. Therefore, the offence under Section 147 ollPC cannot go on.

12. It is also apt to note that Section 338 ol'IPC deals with wrongful restraint and to attract tlre oFfence under Section 339 of IPC, there should be voluntary obstruction of any person so as to prevent that person liom proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. 22 KI.J Cd P. No.l75l of2025

13. In the present case, none of the witnesses spoke about the said obstruction much less voluntary obstruction to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction' Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners herein cannot go on'

14. Section 441 of IPC deals with criminal trespass' To attract the said offence, one who enters into or upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property'

15. In the present case, the place of offence is GHMC offrce' l$ petitioner is sitting MLA. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Former MLAs, and some of the accused are Corporators of CHMC' Therefore, it carurot be termed that they have trespassed into the GHMC office and it amounts criminal trespass. Therefore, the contents of the complaint and statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 tack the ingredients of the said offence' Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners herein cannot go on for the said offence.

16. Section 152 deals with assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot, etc. Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant' in endeavouring to 23 KL,J Crl P No l75l of2025 disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant, he is tiable for punishment prescribed thereunder. To attract the said offence, the contents of the compfainJ and statements of L.Ws.l to 4 lack the ingredients of the said offence. There is no assault or obstruction of any public servant. Therefore, the proceedings in the aloresaid CC against the petitioners herein cannot go on for the said olfence.

17. As stated above, in the charge sheet, the [nvestigating Olficer mentioned that in spite of his efforts to secure eye witnesses. no one came forward to speak about the incident to prove that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them. The L.Ws. I to 4, 7 to 9 are the complainant, Police Constables and Investlgating Officers and L.Ws.5 and 6 are panch witncsses. 'fheretbre, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioners herein.

18. The facts ofthe present case fall within the pararneters laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lala. Therefore. r'ierved f-rom any angle, continuation of proceedings in C.C. No.47l of 2023 is not u arranted and the same are liable to be quashed. 24 KLJ Crl.P. No l75l of2025 CONCLUSION: Applying the principle laid douTr in the above said judgments and in view of the above said discussion, the present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.473 of 2023 pending on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners alone are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed. i3!'g'"^i,T+Sld'"#E /TTRUE COPY' @- SECTION OFFICER To, i,ff'#{t+tetfilt'sgfii.ill'ii',p"t*H.'",t1l,i}'"%*,.". lo*11o c"p.. 5 SM/PSL Y'v HIGH COURT DATED: 2110412025 ORDER CRLP.No.1753 sf 2025 / I .. 1LlirE 5, ? L 20ff5 r\f,h T 11 JUL ?W { CHf:rJ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION a C"EL Y\- - 6Gr