Criminal Petition No. 4855 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No 4855 of 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Dr.M.P.Kashuyap, learned counsel representing Mr.R.V.Pavan Maitrcy , learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 and Sr Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecuto fbr respondent No. I State.

2. This Crirninal Petition is tlled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhi , 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against the p titioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.56 of 2021 on the file o the learned Principal

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Sid lpet

3. Petitioner herein is accused o.3 in the afbresaid C.C. The offences alleged against t c petitioner arc under Sections 143,341 and 188 of IPC nd Section 5l of the 2 Disaster Managernent Act, 2005 (for short 'DM Act, 2005')

4. Orr the complaint dated 15.06.2020 of respondent No.2, Police, Siddiperl Town Police Station. Siddipet District. registered a case in Crirne No.242 ot'2020 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences

5. In thc cornplaint dated 15.06.2020. thc allegations lcveled against the petitioner are that on 15.06.2020 at about 1 1.00 a.rn. respondent No.2 along u,ith his staff i.e., LWs.2 and 3 constables are conducting patrolling, they ltave received inlbnnation through reliablc sources that solne pcrsons were gathered and condtrctccl Dharna at the Elcctricity Office, Mushtabad X load. -l'hcrcfore, ha'"'e reached the said spot and observcd that sorne persons are in front of the electricity office. f'he sairl persons havc been conducted Dharna in violation ol' thc guidelines issued by the Governrnent with regard to Covicl-l9 without rvearing rnasks and also violated the Modcl Codc of )J Conduct. On enquiry, he came to ow about the details of the aforesaid persons, includin the petitioner herein Respondent No.2 has requested the Station House Officer, Siddipet-I Town Police Station, iddipet to take action against the petitioner/accused No.3 nd others.

6. During the course of investig tion, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements f respondent No.2 as LW.1, Sarampally Kanakaiah, c nstable of Siddipetl Town Police Station as LW.2. That ari Bharath, constable of Siddipet Town Police Stati n as LW.3. On consideration of the said state ents recorded under Section 16l of the Code of Crirnin I Procedure, 1973, the Investigating ' Officer laid char sheet against the petitioner herein. The same was tak n on filc as C.C.No.66 of 2021 against the petitioner for th aforesaid offences.

7. Petitioner filed the present etition to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. c ntending that in view of the bar under Section 60 of DM ct, 2005, Police can't 4 register FIR against the petitioner for the ofl'ence under Section 5l of DM Act, 2005 by registering Crime No.242 ol' 2020. It is in violation of tlre procedure laicl down unclcr Section 60 of DM Act, 2005. Without considering the same, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance ol the afbrcsaid oflences against the petitioner-accused No.3 lrerein. With the said subrnissions, the petitloner sought to cluaslr thc proceedings in CC No.56 of 2021against lrirn

8. Whercas, learned Additional public prosecutor r,vould contend that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner along witir others violated Covid- l9 guidelines issued by the Govcrnrnent vidc G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 04.06.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 07.06.2020. There are also spccific allegations levclled against the petitioner. The contentions raised by the petitioner are triable issues which this Court cannot consider in a petition under Section - 52g of the BNSS as thc sar.ne havc to be considered after a full-fledged trial 5 only by the trial Court. Thus, he ought to dismiss thc present criminal petition

9. As discussed supra, the alleg tion levelled against the petitioner and other accused that they havc not fbllowed the covid-19 guidelin s issued by the Govcrnment vide G.O.Ms.No.75, d red 04.06.2020. It is relevant to note that the Governme t has alrcady issued G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 07.06.2020 r laxing the conditions irnposed in G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 0 .06.2025 and relaxed the said conditions and permitted t owners to open the shops, religious places, hotels, r staurants and other hospitality services and shopping ma ls (other than garning centers and cinema halls) etc. Wi hout considcring the same, the respondent No.2 has lodg d the said cornplaint dated 15.06.2020.

10. In the light of the said submis ions, it is relevant to extract Section 5l and 60 of DM Act 2005: 6 5 t . Ptr nishment for obstrttction, ctc'- \\/hocver. n'ithout rcasonable causc- (a) obstlucts arly officer or enrployee ol' the ('cntral (iol e rnttretrt or thc Statc Covcl'ntlctlt, or ir person autholised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authoritv in the rlischargc ol his lunctions under this Act: tlt' (b) r'e lirscs to con.rply with any direction givcn by ,rl on bchall- ol'the Ccntlal Governmerrt or the State Governlrcnt or thc National Irccutivc ('ommittee ol thc State Executive Conlnrittee or llrc District Authority undcr this Act, shall on convictiou be punishablc "vith rrupLisontleut ftlr a tertn which may cxtend to olle )ear or rvith line, or with both, ancl il' such obstruction or relusal to cornply with dircctions lcsults in loss ol'lives or imtninent dangcr thcreof, shall orl conviction be punishable with irnplisonment lor a term which rnay cxtend to trvo VCal-s_ "(r0. (iognizancc of offences - No Court shall tahc cognizaltcc of atr offcncc utrder tltis Act crcept on a conrplaint made by- (a)the National r\uthority, thc State Authority, thc Central (iovclnment, thc State Governmcnt. thc District Authority or any other authority or otticer 7 authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Govemment, as the case may ; or (b)any person who has given notice of not I ss than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of and his intention to make a National Authority, the Sta e alleged oflence complaint to the Authority, the Centlal Covernment, the Stat Government, the District Authority or any other uthority or offlcer authorised as aforesaid.

11. In the complaint dated 15.06.2 20 and the statements of LWs.l to 3 recorded under Secti n 161 of Cr.P.C, they havc simply stated that the petitio er and others stopped the persons coming to electricity ffice. They have not mentioned the names or details of e said persons whom the petitioner and others alleg ly stopped. The Investigating Officer did not reco the statements of any inclependent witness including th persons whom the petitioner and others have stopped Without considering the sarne, the Investigating Offi er laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and ther accused for the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate has taken .i ...1 B cognizancc of the said offences. More, police cannot register an FII{ against the petitioner for the offences under Section 51 o1'thc DM Act in view of the bar under Section 60 of thc DA4 Act. In the light of the said discussions, the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.56 of 2021 for the off'cnce undcr Section 51 of the DM Act are herebv quashed.

12. With regard to Section 143 of IPC, it is relevant to note that Section 143 of IPC deals with punishment for unlawful assernbly. Section 141 defincs the unlawful assembly, and the same is cxtracted under l-l l. Unlau ful lssenrbly.- An assembly ol'flve or more persons is designated an "unlarvluI asscrnbly", if the cornrnon object of thc persons composing that assembly is-- (First) - 'l-o overarve by criminal force, or show of criminal firrce, lthe Central or auy State (lovernment or Parliament or the Legislature of 9 any State, or any public servan in the exercise of the law{ul powcr of such public servant; or (Second) - -l'o resist the execu on of any law, or ol any legal process. or (Third) - To commit any mi chief or criminal trespass, or other of'tence; or (Fourth) - By rneans of crimina force, or show of criminal fbrce, to any person, possession of any propefty, person ol the enjoyment of a the use ol- water or other rn rvhich he is in possession or to take or obtain r to deprive any ght of way, or of orporeal right of enjoyment, or to enlorce any right or supposed ri ht; or (Filih) - By means of criminal force, or show ol crirninal f urce, to compel any erson to do what he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do what he is legatly entitled to do. Explanation - An assembly unlarvful '"vhen it assembled, becorne an unlawluI assembly. which was not ay subsequently

13. Section 341 of IPC deals wi the punishment for wrongful restraint. Section 339 of IPC defines wrongful restraint and the sarne is extracted u 10

339. \\'roneful rcstraint.- Whocver r.oluntarily obstructs any pel'son so as to l)reveut lhat pcrson t}om ploceeding in any ditcction in u,hich that 1-.crsou has a right to proceed, is sairl wnrnglully to restrain tliat person E,xcc tron l he obstruction ol a private rvay over land or $,atcr rvhich a pcrson in good faith belicvcs [riursell- to lravc a larvtirl right to obstruct, is not an ol-lcrrcc rvithin the rncaning of this scctron Irr tlre complaint datccl 15.06.2020 and statetnents of LWs. I k) 3, ingredients of Section 341 of [PC are lacking against thc pctitioner.

14. Section 188 of IPC dcals rvith 'disobedience to order duly prornulgated by a 1;ublic servant' and the salne is extracted as uncler. "188. Disobediencc to ordcr dul1, promulgated br public scrvant. Whoevcr, knowing that, by an ordct' pronrulgatecl b1, a puttlic servant lawfully ertrltoweled to prontulgate such order, he is directed 11 to abstain from a certain act, or to ake cerlain order with certain property in his pos sion or under his management, disobeys such direct on, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to annoyancc or injury, or risk annoyance or injury, to any employed, be punished with sim use obstruction, of obstruction, person lawfully le imprisonment fbr a term which may extend to o e month or with fine which rnay extend to two h ndred rupees, or with both; and ilsuch disobedicn causes or trends to cause danger to human life, he lth or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot o affray, shall be punished with irlplisonment of ither description for a term which may extend to si months, or with llne which rnay extend to one th sand rupees, or with both. Explanation. lt is not n essary that the ofTender shou ld intend to harm, or contemplate his d isobedience as I harm. [t is sufficient that hc kn which he disobeys, and that kely to produce s of the order is disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, rTn Illustration An order is p mulgated by a public servant lawfully empowere to promulgate such order, directing that a reli lous processlon shall not pass down a ceftain stre t. A knowingly t2 <Jisobeys the order, aLrd thereby causcs datrger of riot. A has cornmitted the ofl-encc dellned in this sectiot-t."

15. It is also apt to note tltat in N.T. llama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. bv Prrblic ['rosccutorr, rvhile dealing with the offences undel Scctlons 188 ancl 283 of [PC, the learned Single Judge of crstwhilc High Court of Andhra Praclesh held as under "5) Evcn if the altegation that thc lletitioner conductcd public rneetings at three toacl junctions contral'y to the perutission accordcd lirr c.onducting of a public meeting onlv at oue sllccifie'd place is trr"re, such a direction undcl Section 30 ol the Police Act, I tt6l could liavc bectl givctl on[1' b1' the Superintendent or the Assistarlt Supelintcndcnt of Potice of the District but not by any of' their subordinates. If such a Derntission is glantr:d under Section 30 of thc Poli<;e Act, l8(r I ancl is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) ol Codc of'Clinrinal [)roccdure matidatcs that the coniplaint in this regard has to be madc by the pubtic servant concetncd ot'sot.nc otlter pt:tson to wliot-it such a public scrv.ltit is adnr in isl.ratively subordinate to cnablc any Courl to Crimiral I'ctitron No.532i o12009. dccided on I 7 09.2009 13 take cognizance of an of-fence und r Section 188 of Code ol Crirninal Procedurc. ln hc present case, the charge sheet was liled by the ub Inspector of Police, who could not have bccn grant pennission tbr the publi he authority to rnceting and therefbre, the con.rpla int/c lrarge sh t is in violation of the mandatory plovision ol Scc ion 195(l Xa) of Code of Criminal Proccdu re. 6) That apart, the offencc alleg committed under Section 2tt3 o1- d to have been he Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and othc is obviously in consequence to the alleged olfen e uncler Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is n an independent of the same. Even otherwise, thc nduct of public meeting at three road junctions ()r bstruction to the traffic could not have been consi ered as causing any danger or injury to any person In so lar as the obstruction in any public way is nccrned, which can also be covered by Section 2 3 of the Indian Penal Code. thr-'chargc sheet cites to speak about the tralfic janr ca nly one witness sed by the road show. But, wher-r the conduct ol- t at least at onc place has bcen pe gathering for that public meeting public meeting itted and if the resulted in any inconvenience by rvay ol obstructi g the traffic, the same cannot be considered to b guilty mens rea to construe the rvith necessary existence ol an offence punishable under lndiarr Pe al Code. Under t4 the circumstances, none of the oltenccs allegctl can be saicl to havc any reasonablc basis ancl irl any view, the conrplaint/charge shect bcing in violation o1' Section i95 (l) (a) ol' Code o1' ( rirninal Proccdurc, has to fail. As the complaint has lailed cltrc to ils uu- 7) sustainability. the proceedings ir-r thcir crltit'r:ty havc to fail, though the lst accused alonc approachctl tltis Court by way of this Criminal Pctition."

16. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The Statc o[ Andltra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rrtral, Wcst Godavari District2, rclYing 0n Vitrtolts judgmcnts including N.T. Rama Rao (supra) and thc guidclincs laid dorvn b1, the Hon'ble Suprctne Coult in Statc <lf Har.vana v. Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, gLliclclinc No'(r, r'rltich says that where there is an cxpress legal llar cngralied in any of the provisions of thc Cocle or thc conceured Act (under r.r,hich a criminal proceeding IS inst itutccl) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where thcre is a specific provision in the Code or the Clirnrnal I'L-trtion No. 1 52'18 of 20 t(;, dccided c'n 16. l0.l() 1 6

2. ' 119,121 SL'P1, I SC(' 335 15 conccrned Act, providing efficaciou rcrnedv to redress the grievance of the party, the leamed Single Judge of High Court of Judicature for the States ol elangana and Andhra Pradcsh at Hyderabad quashcd thc oceedings in the C.C. mentioned therein by exercising po er under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is further hcld that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical de t of obtaining prior permission under Section 155(2) f Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint liled by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section I 95( 1 (a) of Cr.P.C.

17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the pcx Court cautioned that power of quashing should be c crciscd very sparingly and circumspection and that too in t c ralest olt rarc cases. While examining a conrplaint, q ashing of rvhich is sought, Courl cannot ernbark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or othe isc ol the allegations made in the cornplaint or in FlR. In the said judgment, the Apex C6urt laid down certain gui elincs/parameters for 76 '1 exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr l''(l '['he sarne read as unclcr: "( l) Where the allegations n.rade in tlrc llrst inlirr-n-ration repor1 or the cornplaint, evcn il'lltel' alc takcn at their tacc value and acceptc(l irr their entircty cio Itol prinra tacie constitttte any ol'lctrce or rnakc out a case against the accusecl. (2) Wlrcre tlrc allcgations in thc lirst i t t I t r t t t t : t I t t r t t report and othcr materials, if any, accotlrpartf irtg tlrc FII( do not disclose a cognizablc oft'cncc,.irrstilying an investigation .by police oificers utldc; Scctiou 156( l) of thc Code cxcept ttuder an ordct' o1' a Ivlagistrate within the purview ol Section I 55(2) ol' thc Code. (3 7 Where thc uncontrovcrted allcgatiotls rtratle it.r thc I''lR or cornplaint and the evicicnce collcctcd in supl)ort of.the same do not disclose the cortltlti:siotr ol- any offence and make out a casc against the accused. (4) Wliere ttre allegations in tlie FIII tlo ntrt constitutc a cognizable oflencc bttt corlstittrtc ort[1' a non-cognizable offence, no invcstigatiorr is pcrnritted by a police oflicer without atl ortlcr ol'a Magistrate as con(errplated urldcr Section 155(2) ol' thc ('odc. 17 (5) Where the allegations ma complaint are so absurd and in e in the FIR or rently improbable on the basis of which no prude reach a just conclusion that t person can ever here is sulllcicnt ground for proceeding against th accusccl. (6) Where there is an express le any of the provisions of the concerned (under which a cri al bar engra lied in Code or the Act inal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and proceedings and/or whele th provision in the Code or Act co efficacious redress fbr the ontinuance of' the a spccilic re ls rcelned, providing ricvancc ol' thc aggrieved party. (7) Where a crirninal procee attended with mala fide a ing is rnanil'cstly d/or rvhere the proceeding is maliciously inst itu ed with an u Itcrior motive for wreaking vengeance n the accused and with a view to spite him duc to p ivate and personal grudge." The said principle was reite ed by the Apcx Court in a catena of decisions.

18. In the light of the above disc ssion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid deci ions, continuation of proceedings in C.C. No.56 of 2021 gainst the petitioner is 1B an abusc of process of la'ul' and' therclilrc' tltc pt'ocecdings are liablc to be quashed against the petitirlncr itt ex':rcise .l of po'"r,crs undcr Scction - 528 of BNSS'

19. Ar:corclingly, the pr'esent Crirninal Petitiorr is allowed arrd tlrc proceecliugs in C'C' No'56 ol 2024 llcncling r-in the fi[c ol lspecia[ Judiciai N'lagistrate of Fiist Class tbr trial of cascs lclating to MPs ancl MLAs at Hydcrabrd' are hcreby cluashccl against the rretitioner - accusccl No'3 only' l',liscellaneous applications, if allv pcncling. stand cltlscd ,TRUE COPY// Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI AsSl TANT REGISTRAR / ECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate' Siddtpet The Station House Offtcer, Siddipet-l Town' P S ' Siddipet Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana 1 2 3 Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri R. V Pavan Maitreya' Advocate IOPUCI 4 5 Two CD CoPies VC,'qh'(x' HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 ORDER CRLP.No.4855 of 2025 ,t .., /,J \\ ,* rl{E S t4 13/|IlEM ! L') c-rrrq9r.l-r ---a_.-, a' ALLOWING THE CRLP I dkA Kw