In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalr, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised

stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C.No.437 ol 2024 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Court at Nampally, Hyderabad and Quash the same in the interests of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: I OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may E be pleased lt is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.437 ot 2024 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Court at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition in the interests of justice This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T V RAMANA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondenl No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K LAKSHMAN CR]MINAL PETITION No.257E OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.l and 2 and Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor appearing on behalfofthe respondents'

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.437 of 2024 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cour! Hyderabad.

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.l and 2 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 341 and 290 ofIPC.

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 - Sub- Inspector of Police, Police Station of Musheerabad, Hyderabad, have registered a case in Crime No.452 of 2023 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections - 188 and 20 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.l, eye- 2 KIJ Crl.P. No 2578 of 2025 wihesses as LWs.2 and3, panch witnesses as LWs.4 and 5. LW.6 is the Inspector of Police, who issued FIR and LW.7 is the Investigating Officer.

5. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Offrcer laid the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections - 341 and 290 ofIPC.

6. [n the complaint, dated 27.11.2023, respondent No.2 stated that he was working as Sub-Inspector of police, Musheerabad Police Station as on that date. On 27.11.2023 at about 20:00 hours, while he was performing patrolling duties and also to monitor the road show in the Sector Area along with Assistant Sub-Inspector (LW.2) and Police Constable (LW.3), a road-show led under the leadership of petitioner No.l and he has also applied permission for road show in the name of BRS MLA contesting candidate of Musheerabad Assembly Constituency, accused No.l. for canvassing from Ramnagar Cross Road to Fish Market and from there to Supreme Hotel. In the said road show, petitioner No.1 participated along with petitioner No.2. During the said road-show at about 20:35 hours, organizers burst the crackers in the public places and caused nuisance to common public. They I ! 3 Kl,j Crl.P. No.2578 of 2025 have violated the Modal Code of Conduct by bursting the crackers in the said road show. The same was also Videographed. Therefore, he requested the Police to take action against the petitioners herein.

7. As stated above, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Offrcer recorded the statements of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police (LW.2) and the Police Constable as LW.3 and also stated in the aforesaid lines as stated by respondent No.2 (LW.l).

8. As stated above, initially, the said crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections - 188 and 290 of IPC. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable uder Sections - 341 and 290 of IPC.

9. Section - 341 of IPC deals with 'punishment for wrongful restraint'. Section - 339 of IPC deals with'wrongful restraint', and it says that 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. ,l I I I I I 4 KLJ Crl.P. No.2578 of2025

10. As discussed above, none of the witnesses including respondent No.2 (LW.l ), LWs.2 and 3 stated tiat they were restrained by the petitioners herein or the petitioners obstructed voluntarily to attract the said offence of urongful restraint. Even then, without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Offrcer laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein altering the offence from Section - 188 ofIPC to 341 ofIPC. Therefore, rhe statements ol LWs.l to 3 lack the ingredients of offence under Section - 339 ollPC. I 1. Section - 290 of IPC deals with 'punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for', and it says that whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by the Code shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. Section - 268 of IPC deals with the definition 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 rvhich causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the puhlic or to the people in general who dwetl or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necbssarily cause injury, I I 5 KL.J Crl-P. No.2578 of2025 obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

12. As discussed above, statements of LWs. 1 to 3 lack the ingredients of Section - 268 of IPC.

13. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalr, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest ol rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought. Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelineVparameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under: "( 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- '. (tggz) supp. I sCC 335 :l 6 KLJ Crt.P. No.257E of2025 (2\ Where the allegations in the frst inlormation report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifiing an invesiigation by' potice 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 rmcontroverted 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 onlv a non-cognizable offence. no investigation is permitted by a police officer rvithout an order 01' a Magistrate as contemplated under Section l5 5(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. l KLJ Crl.P. No.2578 of2025 (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 instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and./or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concemed. providing eflicacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved PartY. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where t}te 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 catena of decisions.

14. ln the present case, as discussed above, the contents of statements of LWs.l to 3 lack the ingredients of offences under Sections - 339 and 268 of IPC. Therefore, without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in C.C. No.437 of 2024 against the petitioners is an abuse of 3 Kl-J Crl.P. No.2578 of2025 f-) process of lau and they cannot go on. Thus, the proceedings in the said CC are liable to be quashed.

15. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.437 of 2024 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.l and 2. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Sd/. P.CH. NAGAEHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYTT /\l l\,--*-=-=-._-==-- J secrroru oFFrcER To 1 2 2 4 5 The XVll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Court Nampally, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, Hyderabad District. One CC to SRl. T V RAMANA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies pr 6.6- Tfuo cc[-to-the gotlf. ;r,oa*rtiorl ltqb cow,l-&w{hr 6la}q "f rda"'gant 6tI1) I I I \ HIGH COURT DATED: nlAA2025 ORAL ORDER CRLP.No.2578 o12025 1HE S I,C 7c- o^ ( i 2 4 APii 2[5 t o * ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION ,h 1co\q Xtr