The High Court · 2025

praying that in the circumstances riminal Petition,the High Court may including the appearance of the of 2021 on the file of the Vl Addl ad pending disposal of the main This Petition coming on for hearing, Grounds of Criminal Petition and u Sri t\LA.Mujeeb, Advocate for the Petrtio Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of the State/ Respondent No.1 and none ap upon perusing the [\/emorandum of on hearing the arguments of ers and Smt S.Madhavi, Assistant of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf ared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL P ETITION No.1824 ot2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in C C No 539 of 2021 on the file of the learned Vl Additional Chief It/letropolitan [t/agistrate at l-lyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,290, 186, 147 read with 149 of lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC').

02. Heard Sri IVl.A.lVlujeeb, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sm1.S.lVladhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and perused lhe record Perused the record

03. Ihe case of the prosecutiorr, in brief, is that on 28022020, at '1 5.00 hours, while Sub-lnspector of Police along with his staff were performing bandobust duty at Azizia fiilosque, at about 14.15 hours, after completion of afternoon prayer, under the leadership of the accused, some people gathered as an unlawful assembly in front of the lt/losque, lVlehdipatnam. without obtaining Police permission The said persons actively participated in a Dharna against NRC and CAA. They raised slogans and displayed placards in protest, creating public nuisance and traffic congesticn, leading to inconvenience to the 2 general public. Basing on the said incident, the Sub-lnspector of Police registered a case in Crime o.64 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences. After completion of inves igation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court concern The same was ta ken cognizance and numbered as C.C o.539 of 2021

04. Learned counsel ap earing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are inn cent and have nothing to do with the offences alleged. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the in redients of offences alleged against them are not made out e further submits that on the basis of statements of witnesses, ho are Police Officials, the lnvestigating Officer conducted t ble rnvestrgation and filed charge sheet in a routine manner ence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

05. Learned Assistant Pu ic Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners ave committed the offences alleged against them and hence, rays to drsmiss the criminal petition.

06. For the sake of conveni nce, Section '1 86 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted ereunder

186. Whoever voluntarily servant in the discharge shall be punished with i obslrucls any public f his public functions, prisonment of either 3 description for a term wltich may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. or with both

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawf ul authority of public servanfs, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courls shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)ot the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit such offence or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except orr tlte complaint in writing of the public servanl concerned or of some other public seruant to whom he ls adminrstratively su bordin ate. . . "

07. A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Seclions 341, 290 186, 147 read with '1 49 of IPC According to Section 195 of Cr.P.C., under Sections 172to 1BB of lPC, a complaint in writing should be given by a concerned public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. As per Section 2(d) of Cr.P C, a "complaint" means an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with the intention of initiating action under the Code, that a person, known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report 4

08. ln the instant case, the complaint was lodged by the Sub-lnspector of Police, who is not competentperson Fu(her except filing a case implicating th petitioners for the offences under the aforesard sections, no ndependent witnesses were examined and no matenal was placed to prove the said allegations against the petitioners s per Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 186 of th lndian Penal Code can only be prosecuted on the basis of a mplaint which is filed by a competent public servant into the Co rt as stated above

09. The allegations against t e petitioner Nos.'1 and 2 are that they along with other accused f rmed into unlawful assembly and raised slogans and created publi nuisance, traffic congestion ln Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Cour observed that Article 19 (1) (a) confers freedom of speech to th citizens of this Country, and thus, this provision ensures that the petitioner could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly ma ner, without using offensive language. ln the present case, ther are no specific allegations that this petitioner used offensive language and there is no evidence to show that due to unl wful assembly, nuisance ts caused to the public and that they ave obstructed free flow of '(zoto) ts scc szs T J traffic or obstructed the public or the authoritres from discharging their duties '1 0. Coming to the other offences, when one of the offence is falling under sectlons 172 lo 'l 88 of IPC and the same cannot be taken of cognizance by the Court as per section 195 of Cr P C., the consequent alleged offences in the aforesaid sections cannot be given roof in the same crime and therefore cannot be maintained. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case. it is relevant to note that the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia rn State of Karnataka v. Hemareddf, at Paragraph No.B, it is held as follows. "8 We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sLlb-section, are committed, rt is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section ,195(i )(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld" 'Attt rgst sc tatI t 6

11. ln view of the aforesai facts and circumstances of the case including the settled prin iple of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia n the above decisions, the continuation of the criminal procee ings against the petitioners- accused Nos.'1 and 2 amounts to ab se of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed

12. Accordingly, this Crimin I Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitione accused Nos l and 2 in C C.No.539 of 2021 on the file of Vl Additional Chief tr/etropolitan [/agistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed ]t/liscella neous applications, i any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE C SD/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECT N OFFICER To, 1 2 4 The Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan The Station House Officer, Humayun N gistrate, Hyderabad gar Police Station, HYderabad One CC to Sri. tVl.A.tt4ujeeb, Advocate PUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Hyderabad [OUT] Court for the State of Telangana, Two CD Copies. PS G HIGH Court JS, J DATED:2610312025 ORDER CRLP.No.1824 of 2022 .a- 1\ iE S .' ,'.- "' I 12 tlJBM \ (' ? () ,'t-' I I \r ! :, '+ t ?ssr,rrct rEo- * ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION ,r/^ luo6