The High Court · 2025

Judlcial First Class [/ acistrate for Excise Cases, At Hyder;rbacl for the offences under section 34 1 an<r 1190 of rpc against the petitioners/ rr.ccuserr 1 to 5, 7 to B and Accused No. 1 0 .:c, . it in the interest of justice l.A. NO: 1 OF 2 025 Petition under ,:i() ltion 52g of B.N.s.S praying that in tre c rcumstances stated in the Memor;arrr,rm of Grounds of criminir pLtiilon the HiEh co*i."y be pleased to srA.Y a r lurther proceedings against the petitioners/],tccused t to 5,7,8 and Accusecr f{c 10 to 12 in c.c tL. r7r oF 2024 on the fi e ot ion'ote special Judiciar Firsl. ()rass Magistrate for Excise cases, r\t Hyderrrbad for the offences under sectir:. 341 and 290 of rpc pending disposar :f the main Criminal Petition in thre i^terest of justice This Petition cor,ing on for hearing, upon perusing the Men.rorandum of Grounds of criminar F'erition and upon li"rring t'he argurr ents of sri Korukuri Akhil Reddy ,Advocate f rr the petitioners and ihe Mr" sh:rrini rearrred counser representing learned pr-hlic prosecutor on behalf of the Rr-.spondeni No.i"no None Appeared for the Fl,:spondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER :l l I TIIE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMIN AL PETITION No. 1964 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Kolukuri Akhil Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel r€presentlng learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS' to quash the proceedings in C.C.No' 3':. I ol 2024 pending on the' {irle of leamed Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cases' at Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos' I to 5' 7 and 8 and l0 to 12 in the CC. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are punishabte under Sections 34 1 and 290 of IPC

3. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Police, Yeldurthy, registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2018 against the petitioners herein and others fbr the aforesaid offences. The aforesaid FtR was registered basing-on the panchanarna, dated 02.06.2018' ln the said panchanama' it is stated by panchas that they have attended the panchanama on the requcst made by Yeldurthy police at Ambedkar cross roads Yetdurll-ty' 2 Sub-inspect,tr tl'police, Sri V.Ganga Raju_comptainanr and other Police oflicrats were present. The complainant intr.odtrcecl himself as SI of YclrI rtry and requested them to act as panchas t,r the said panchanarna. I t s further stated that some people w,-re .;qlra tting on the road uzitht,rr any permission. On enquiry, the1, s211. to know the names c t he said persons, who are squattin6l. T hus by squatting :n ttc said road, petitioners and others havr: caused inconvenience tr the people and also vehicles.

4. Durins the r:ourse of investigation, the Invesligating ,)fficer recorded the stltements of ASI, Constables of the :;aid police starion as r)vy'. - I to 4. eye witnesses. All of thenr in ..r voice stated that the tr:titioners and others are squatting on th,: road u,ithout obta.n n I any permission and started r;risir_u s lo-uans agairrst the r-ior lr 1ment.

5. On consideration of the said statements, thc tnve5li 3s1ing Ofiiccr laid c h I .re sheet against the petitioners here u t, rr. thc atirlcsaid olf'cn<:es and the same was taken on hle vtCc (..(,.,rJo.52 ol1020. (r Section 2(rll of IpC deals with definition of pu.rlic rlr.lr!;ance, the same is extra:t,:d below:- at!Q@? 'lii:lErt'' " r::i; :.::::.: . - :ii,a:.-,:., :.:a:aaara;t- 3 "A person is guilty oJ a public nuisance who does any ucl or is guiby of an illegal omission which causes any common injur.v, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occury property in the vicinity, or which must necessaily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that il causes some convenience or advantage ". Section 290 of IPC deals with punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for, the same is extracted below:- "V[hoever commits a public nuisance in any case not othemrise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with .fine which na.t' extend to two hundred ruPees". Section 339 of IPC deals with definition of wrongful restraint' the same is extracted below:- " Whoever voluntarily obstnrcts any pcrson so as to pret'cnt thot person from proceeding in any dircction in n'hiclt thdt pcrson has a right to proceed, is said wrong/i l.v ttt restrain tltat person Exception.-The obstruction of a private w'a-t) over lantl or vtaler w,hich a person in good faith believe-s himseU-to hatc a lartf l right to obstruct, is not an offencc vvithin thc mcaning of thi.s section" Section 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongtul restraint, which is extracted below:- 4 't{ho,t r wrongfully restrains any person t:hall bt ptin;.\'t t (t v,ith simplc imprisonment.for a tcrm wl.,iclt rna.t t.(t( ttt t : one montlt, or with .fine which may e..:tcttrt ht fitt, lu t tt,cd ntpees, or with both,,.

7. As rlisc:,:,r ed supm, the contents of pan<:hananta, dated 02.06.201t1 lr)c statements of LWs_l to 4, eye witne:;s kLcks the ingredientr; of Ir,,' said offences. None of the witnesses state I about their rvronglul rr:strainment or of any person. The Investigating Olficer dio not rr:cord the statement of any individual t() pru)ve that the petitioncrs rLtrl other accused restrained them wrongfull.,... E.ven the contenti r,f r r: said statements, including panchanarna la,:ks the - li:::tion 26g of IpC. Without considering tl-Le same, ingredients o thc [nvestillarir.l Otficer laid charge sheet against the pe,:irioners herein

8. Irr Statc o. l{aryana v. Bhajan Lal3, the Ape;,: Cour. :autioned that pow,el ol lL,rshing should be exercised ver.y spari rgly and circuntsltcctitrn in I that too in the rarest of rear casej. While exatntnlnq a ,'!irl llarnt, quashing of which is sought, Cou l cannot ernbark ulx)r, .r :rncluiry as to the reliability or genul llrllless or otlierwise ol' rltr. ll.rqa11s.r made in the FIR or in the cornplaint. The thc said judgment laid do,r,n ccrtain Apex Cour ,;*-..... 5 guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under: I i "(l) 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 offrcers under Section 156(l) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) ofthe Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made iu the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppott of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a cas€ against thc 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 otticer rvithout an order of a Magistrate as contemplatcd under Section 155(2) of the Code' (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or courplaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person oan ever reach a just conclusion that there is suffrcient ground tor proceeding against the accused. 6 ((r) \'r'rcrc therc is an exprcss legal bar engrafied i,.r an. o"' I r prcvisions of the Code or the Act Joncahl,_-( (L:nrL:r r.vhich a criminal proceeding is institut,:d) to t tr irsl t,:tion and continuauce of the proceedin.gs andio u'h( r-' there is a specific provision in the Code o" Act cor:r:r,rc(l, providing efficacious redress for titr. ur ic,,:r rcc of the aggrieved party. l?) f /rcrc a criminal proceeding is manifestll, attendr:c 'r rtl rnala fide and/or where the proceeding is ,r al c i .usly instituted with an ulterior m,ctive firr n,'crrl:,ng vengoance on the accused and with a vieu, ic spitr tirn due to private and personal grudge." The said Dt ir r:rlrlc \!,as reiterated by the Apex tlouft ir L catena of decisions

9. In the 'i1lr of thc said principle and discussion, ,)olrt nuation of procccdi rr: in C.C.No.l7l of 2024 against the peritioners herein is a l) ,ll' r :,c ol'plocess of law.

10. In thr: lilI of' rhe said discussion, this crinrinat perition is allou,ccl ar(i r'rr lrroceedings in C.C.No.37l of Zt|)24 pen,ling on the flle ol thc l..anre(l Special Judicial First Clasr; Magirstrbte for Excisc cast::. I t lvclcrabad against the petitioners/accused l.{os.l to 5, 7 to [i arrd I ) ,r 12. alone, are quashed 7 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitionS, if any, pending in the writ petitions shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ! SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR SECT OFFICER

1. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, At Hyderabad.

2. fhe Station House Officer, P.S Yeldurthi, Medak Diskict 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad(OUT)

4. One CC to Sri Kolukuri Akhil Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5, Two CD Copies CHS/gh I To, HIGH COURT DATED:1810312025 ORDER CRLP.No.1964 ot 2025 i<... ^Tl ;; !) -E (:) 0( ;'t- ll- ' .r.\.* , ,,\' ,r.tt (- ! ]\, !': 'l ,r:ri THE CRIMINAI. PETITION IS ALLOWED 6t6( 0r