The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, High Court, Hyderabad. Sri. a. niiu Naik, S/o. Not Known, Age. Not Known, Occ lnspector of Police, R/ o. Saifabad PS. Hyderabad, T S. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS 2 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 Petitioner/ Accused No.9 in cc No. 13424 ol 2O2O on the file of I Addl. chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences under sections 353, 341, 332, 152, 143' 147 RA/t/ 149 of IPC in the interest of justice and equity. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 Petitioner/ Accused No.9 in CC No. '13424 of 2020 on the file of I Addl. chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences under sections 353, 341, 332, 152, 143, 147 R^/\/ 149 of IPC 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 T Srujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla tearned Addl Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: OROER 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI I ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.9 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.13424 of 2020 pending on the file of I Additional Chief lt/etropolitan Magistrate Court at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 353, 332, 341 , 152, 143 and 147 r/w. 149 of IPC

2. Heard Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and lvlr Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2020, the complainant, along with other police personnel, WAS performing bandobust duties at Osmania Gate during the Assembly Sessions. At around 11:10 hrs, 20-30 ABVP activists holding flags obstructed traffic on the main road. Despite police requests to clear the road, the activists sat on the road and raised slogans. They then attempted to trespass onto Assembly premises by climbing the Osmania Gate and wall. When police tried to stop them, the activists resisted and used force, injuring the complainant and HG 6017 Jagadishwar. The complainant declared the assembly unlawful and 2 ls,1 Crl.P.No.3214 of 2025 ordered them to disperse, but the activists continued to use force and assaulted police officers. ln response, a lathi charge was ordered, resulting in injuries to some activists and the apprehension of a few

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations Ievelled against the petitioner are farse. To attract Section 143 of lPC, the common object of the person would need to fall within one of the five categories which have been laid down under Section 14.1 of lPC. ln the case on hand, there is absolutely no mention of the common object and there is no indication as to how the alleged offence of unlaMul assembly is attracted. ln this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir,. He further submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, in order to suppress the precious fundamental right enshrined in Article i9 (1) of the Constitution of lndia

5. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation in the charge sheet that any vehicles or persons are obstructed by the petitioner, to attract the offence under Section 341 of lpC. The protest at Osmania Gate itself shows that they are not obstructing the way. There is no public nuisance caused by them, hence, ' (2016) ts scc 52s 3 ts,1 Crl.P.L'o.3214 of 2025 Section 290 of IPC does not attract and there is no allegation in the charge sheet to constitute the offence under Section 186 of lPC, where they have not obstructed any public servant from discharging the duties He further submits that petitioner is a practicing Advocate. Except making false and frivolous allegations, there are no specific allegations attributed to him and he never participated in any incident as alleged and there is no complaint given by any civilian, as such, causing public nuisance and obstructing the traffic is not at all obstructed. He further submits that all the witnesses in this case are Police constables and no public were examined to prove the innocence and all the statements are cyclostyled statements. He further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court, in Cd.P.No.3865 oI 2024 has quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therern. Since the petitioner herein also stands on the same footing, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against him.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner was part of the unlaMul assembly and tried to trespass into the premises of Telangana State Legislative Assembly and thereby, he committed the alleged offences and there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and only after 4 JS,1 Crl.P.No.3214 of 2025 full-fledged triar, the truth or otherwise wourd come out and prayed to dismiss this petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the ailegations against the petitioner are that he arong with other accused formed into unlawful assembly and raised slogans and tried to trespass into the premises of the Telangana state Legisrative Assembry. The contention of petitioner is that he never participated in the protest and arso reried upon the Judgment of A,nita Thakur,s case (supra), wherein, the Hon,ble Supreme Court observed that Article i9 (1) (a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country, and thus, this provision ensures that the petitioner could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive language. ln the present case, there are no specific afiegations that this petitioner used offensive language and there is no evidence to show that due to unlawful assembly, nuisance is caused to the public and that he has obstructed free flow of traffic or obstructed the pubric or the authorities from discharging their duties. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 5 ts,I Crl.P.No-3214 oI2O2S

8. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioneriaccused No.9 in c.c.No.13424 of 2020 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K.SAI KUMARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER To

1. The I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad 2' The station House officer, saifabad porice station, Hyderabad District. 3. One CC to Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD copies. I}JLI] I I HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.3214 ol 2025 CRIMINAL PETITIOI.I IS ALLOWED ( ) ;i t'rE{ t , ? o {+ 2 3 r'rAi 20fr {t 5 )^ l