The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c rlw s2B 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 petitioners in c.c.No. 1111 of 2020 on the file of the lAdditional JDCL FC lVlagistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District, for the offences punishable U/s. 143, 341 rlw 149 of lpc. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2 025 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying rtw s2g of BNSS that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be preased to stay ail further proceedings against the petitioners including appearance of the Petitioners/ Accused No's 1-3 and 5-6 & 9-10 herern in c c-No.1111 of 2020 on the fire of lAdditional JDCL FC Magistrate at Jagtiar, Jagtial District for the offences punishable uts. 143, 341 rtw 149 of lpc. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Shaik Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Muhammed Abed, Advocate for the petitioners and the Additionar Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Public The Court made the following Order:- - THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.3937 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 52g ot Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short ,BNSS, 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.1111 of 2O2O on the file of the I Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First class at Jagtial District, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, S, 6, 9 and 10. 2. Heard Mr.Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 -State. 3. The petitioners are arrayed accused Nos.1 to 3,5,6, g and 10 in C.C.No.'l 111 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 143 and 341 rtw. t '149 of lndian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that, on 22.05.201g between 17:00 hrs to 17'.15 hburs, at Ambedkar Statue, in front of RDO's Office, Jagtial, the petitioners formed into an unlawful assembly and staged protest against lsrael & USA against the killings of Palestine children. Therefore, contending that by such an act the petitioners have wrongfully restrained the people, the complaint was registered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have assembled and peacefully organized demonstration ventilating their views. However, the proceedings have been initiated 2 without any legal basis. He further pointed out that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3865 of 2O24 had considered similar aspect and by observing that peaceful and orderly demonstrations will not make out any offence, quashed the proceedings. As the petitioners are in same footing, prayed for similar relief.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case has been initiated, as the petitioners staged protest programme without necessary permission from the authority and the protest caused inconvenience to the public. However, fairly accept that this Court has decided similar situations as pleaded by the petitioners and held that continuance of proceedings under Sections 143 and 341 rlw. 149 of IPC are not maintainable and quashed the proceedings. I have perused the materials on record.

7. B. Admittedly, the petitioners gathered to express their impression staged protest against lsrael and USA against the events between lsrael and USA condemning the killings of Palestine children and the materials are not indicating any allegation of offensive overt act against the petitioners. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the Criminal Petition cited supra, having relied on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( in Anita Thakur vs. Government of Jammu and Kashmirl held that Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of lndia c,onfers freedom of speech to the citizens of the Country and enshrines ' lzoro; ts scc szs \ J that peaceful protest in orderly manner without offensive language would not constitute offence quashed the prosecution proceedings. 9. ln the inslant case, there is no allegation as to any offensive act on the part of the petitioners and there is no material prima facie evidencing nuisance or causing obstruction to the public. Thus, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners would be abuse of process.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition is liable to be and is accordingly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3,5,6,9 and 10 in C.C.No.1111 of 2020 on thefile of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial District, are hereby quashed. [\4iscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL OEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, \ '1 . The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial. 2. The Station House Officer, Jagtial Town P.S., Jagtial Diskict 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate [OPUC] s. Two CD Copies VC/gh s HIGH COURT DATED:2110312025 l ORDER -----::'=--\ i n-. s r4r/:- tt-"" 02 t{AY 2[[ /,//. ) I : CRLP.No.3937 ot 2025 )r, ALLOWING THE CRLP @d3 W