High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

2. D.Satyanarayana,, Sub lnspector of Police, Humayunnagar Police Station, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 quash the proceeding in C.C-No 6004 of 2021 on the file of Vl Addl.chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad Against the petitioner /accused No1 l.A. NO: 2OF 2022 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 all further proceedings in C.C. No 6004 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, including the appearance of the Petitioner / Accused No.1, pending disposal of the Main Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M A MUJEEB ,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1826 ot 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.6004 of 2021 on the file of the learned Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 ,290, 186, 147 read with 149 of lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC').

02. Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. Perused the record

03. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on i4 02 2O2O at 14 00 hours, while Sub-lnspector of Police along with hrs staff were performing bandobust duty at Azizia Mosque, at about 14 15 hours, after completion of afternoon prayer, under the leadership of the accused, some people gathered as an unlawful assembly rn front of the Mosque, Mehdipatnam, 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 congestion, leading to inconvenience to the 2 general public. Basing on the said incident, the Sub-lnspector of Police registered a case in Crirne No.53 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court concerned. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.6004 of 2021 .

04. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the offences alleged. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the ingredients of offences alleged against him are not made out. He further submits that on the basis of statements of witnesses, who are Police Officials, the lnvestigating Officer conducted table investigation and filed charge sheet in a routine manner. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged against him and hence, prays to dismiss the crimtnal petition.

06. For the sake of convenience, Section 186 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.

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

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servanfs, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Coutls shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 1BB (both inclusive)of 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 on the complaint in witing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he ls administratively subordinate.." 07 A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 290, 186, 147 read with 149 of IPC- According to Section 195 of Cr.P.C., under Sections 172 to 188 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 writrng to a lVlagistrate, 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 a competent person. Further, except filing a case implicating the petitioner for the offences under the aforesaid sections, no independent witnesses were examined and no material was placed to prove the said allegations against the petitioner. As per Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 186 of the lndian Penal Code can only be prosecuted on the basis of a complaint which is filed by a competent public servant into the Court as stated above.

09. The allegations against the petitioner No.1 is that he along with other accused formed into unlaMul assembly and raised slogans and created public nuisance, traffic congestion. ln Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu and Kashmi/, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Article 19 (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 allegations that thrs petitioner used offensive language and there is no evidence to show that due to unlaMul assembly, nuisance is caused to the public and that they have obstructed free flow of traffic or (t0 r6) r5 scc -- '}5 5 I obstructed the public or the authorities from discharging their duties

10. Coming to the other offences, when one of the offence is falling under sections 172 lo 1BB 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 in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddf , at Paragraph No.8, it is held as follows: 1 ) I "8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the sante transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Sectron 1 95(1 ) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it rs not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld" t AtR 198't sc tarz 6

11. ln view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in the above decisions, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused No.'l amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/acclJsed No.1 in C.C.No.6004 of 2021 on the file of Vl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. [Vliscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.B.G.VYJAYANTHI STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Vl Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, humayunnagar Police Station, Hyderabad city' 3. One CC to SRl. M A MUJEEB Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Telangana,Hyderabad

5. Two Cd CoPies. Pp HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 ;iE S l;i '(' ,J, (' z C,) i o (J .e't 11AUE m a. -JP^ TCHr-c t ORDER GRLP.No.1826 ot 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS CLOSED ( $- 6 t,