The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, P.S. Jagtial Town, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. R Prakash, Sio Not Known, Aged about not known, Occ. lnspector of Police, R/o. lnspector of Police, P.S Jagtial Town, Mobile No.9440793'136, Jagtial, Jagtial District. ...Respondents/De-facto Complainant 7 Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c R/w 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal F"iition, in" Hig-h court may be preased-to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in c.c.No.516 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Lu-aicia'i First class H,r"gi"iot" at Jagtial, Jagtial District, for the offences punishabte U/s.143,34.1 r/w 149;f lpc. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2 025 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c R/w 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal F"iitioi, it" High court may be preased to stay ail further proceedings against tne peiitioners including appearance of the petitioners/Accused ruo,J t -a and 4-6 and g-10 herein in c.c.No.516 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Judicial First ciass Magistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate for the petitioners and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.28S8 of 2O2S ORAL ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 52g Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No.S16 of 2O2O on the file of the I Additional JDCL FC Magistrate, at Jagtial, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishpble under Sections 143,341 read with 149 of IpC.

2. Heard Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor for respondent - State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police, being the complainant, have registered a suo moto case against the innocent persons, with allegations that are vague and general, and without aly material evidence to show that they have committed an offence. He contended that there is a delay in registering the FIR, which was not explained by the respondent police, and that the copy of the FIR was not dispatched to the concerned Court within the stipulated time, I l 2 indicating malafide intention on the part of the respondent police. He averred that the entire investigation was done with a claldestine motive to target specific individuals, and that the respondent police have implicated the petitioners with a view to accomplish their pre-determined objective, and that the provisions of Sections 143, 341, and 149 of the IPC are not attracted to the case, and that the petitioners have been implicated intentionally to suppress their democratic rights. Therefore, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by allowing this Criminal Petition.

4. On the other hand, iearned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that on 79-06-20|A, between 18:30-18:45 hours, a group of individuals, including Shaik Sajid and Mohammed Shafi, allegedly gathered at Ambedkar Statue in front of RDO's Office, Jagtial, and formed an unlawful assembly, causing nuisance in the public place by staging a Dharna protest and exhibiting flexies demanding justice for a rape victim, as such, a suo moto case was registered on I t I 3 2\-O6-2olafor the offences as alleged' Therefore' he prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal petition' 5. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material placed on record' the allegations against the petitioners are that they formed into unlawful assembly and raised slogans demanding justice for a rape victim' The learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of Anita Thakur vs' Governaent of Jammu aud Kashmirl wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this counlry and' thus' this provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan ' in a peaceful and orderly manner' without using offensive language' In the present case' there are no allegations that these petitioners used offensive language and there is no evidence to show that due to unlawful assembly' nuisance is caused to the public and that they have obstructed free flow of traffrc or obstructed the public or the authorities from discharglng their duties' Hence' continuation of proceedings against these petitioners is not tenable and the same is liable albeit to be quashed' ' zot6 ts scc sz5 ( I I d 4

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No.5l6 of 2O2O orr the file of the I Additional JDCL FC Magistrate, at Jagtial' Jagtial District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. \ To Sd/. K AMMAJI ASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// A I E:CTION OFFICER

1. The I Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Jagtial' Jagtial District i. fn" St"tion House Officer, Jagtial Town Police Station' Jagtial 5. i;" ccs to the public prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One'CC to Sri bnaik-Muhammed Abed, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ADKPR w "\ \ t HIGH COURT DATED:2810212025 ORDER CRLP.No.2858 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRLP q\- \6 l+\aK \ \{ \)( s I \JA o (-) 16 APB 206 z o.\ t 5A'I €