Criminal Petition No. 7619 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Redd.v, learned counsel for the petitioner. ! Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, the learned Additional l)ublic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. ORDER: The petitioner prays for quashing of c.c.No.394 of 2023 for the offences under sections 143 and 341 read with section 34 of The Indian Penal code, 1860 ('lPc',) pending on the f,rle of the Iearned Special Judicial F'irst Class Magistrate under Prohibition Act (Excise Court)-cum-special Court, I{yderabad.

2. The offences emanate from a Complaint dated 15.10.2019 given by one M.Parran Kumar to the Sub-lnspector of Police, Nereducherla P.S. r,r,ith regard to an incident which took place on

15. 1 O.2O 19 at 7:15 P.M. and relates to the "BJP contesting candiclate" Kota Rama Rao who along with "BJP President" one Laxman and other leaders held a road show on the main road in Dirshincherla Villagc causing a hold up of traffic for thirty minutes. The d.e facto complainant requestcd the Police to take legal action against I(ota Rama ltao as per the Model Code of conduct of the Election Commission of India. 2 \. \l .* *-"11 - 3' Pursuanr to the compiaint dated 15.ro.2org, an I,-rR in crime No' 184 of 20rg \\ras registered or:r the fire of the Nereducharra, p.s. on the same day i.e., on rs.ro.2o19 against Kota Rama Rao and others. The contents of the complaint/statement of complaint as recordecr in the FIR further allege violation of Moral code of conduct Flules (Mcc Rures). Subsequently, a chargesheet *ras fired against l(ota Rama Rao and Kova Laxman reiterating the incident whic:h took place on 15. 10.2019 at 07: 15 p.M. hours at Dirs,hincherra vilage, Nereducherla Mandal. 4' The specific charge against Kota Rama Rrlo (A.1.) and Kova Laxman (A.2.) is that they gathered some other p,arty members ancl formed an unrawful assembl' at Dirshincherla village for conducting a road shor.r, and obstructing fre:e flow movement for about thirtv minutes which caused people. The accused persons were. charged ,,vith the offences punishabre under sections 143 and 341 read wi*L section 34 0f the IPC in c.c.No.3 94 of 2023 for participating in the said road show. 5' I have heard rearned Senior counser zrcpearing for the petitioner (A.2) and the learned Additionar public prosecutor difficulty ro of public -\ t J appearing for the respondent-State. The respondent No.2,/ de facto complainant is not represented.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed the relevant provisions of law in respect of the charges as well as the documents in support of his submisisions. According to Senior Counsel, the Criminal Case was filed for political and coilateral reasons and that none of the sections mentioned in the Chargesheet are applicable to the facts of the case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

7. the respondent No.l/State of Telangana places the Complaint dated 15.10.2019 as'*,ell as the evidence given by L.Ws.1-6 to urge that the petitioner was correctl.v charged under the sections mentioned in the Chargesheet. The Additional Public Prosecutor relies on the evidence given by the Videographer (L.W.4) and the independent witnesses (L.Ws.5 and 6) in support of his submissions. It is further submitted that Clause (1O) of the Permission No.C/ 1634l2Ol9 dated 13. 10.2019 granted to the petitioner for conducting a ra\ly /procession during the 89 Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency Bye Elections, 2Ol9 clearly mentions that the petitioner r,vould be responsible for any aggravated law and order situation consequent to the p+-*,-L+<.-_. \ \ii .- o*"t1 4 I 1 i I rally /procession. The primary submission of the Additional public Prosecutor is that the number of persons rvho \,,ere present in the rally is a matter of crime and that the petitioner can raise the grounds raised in the present criminar petiti.n during the Trial. The Additional public prosecutor accordinely urges that the criminal Petition should be dismissed and the questions raised should be adjudicated in the Trial. -

8. I harre considered the submissions macle on behalf of the parties and considered the rclevant pro'isions of the Ipc and the decisions cited on behalf of the parties. 9- The court proposes to creal urith the sections vr,,ithin the template of the facts as recorded in the chargesr-Leet.

10. Section l4l of the lpc defines 'unlawfur assembly, as uan assemblg of fiue or more persons, if the contmon <tbject of the persons composing that assembly is, _ o To overa\ /e by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the central or any state G(lvernment or Parliament or the Legislature of any Stzrte, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawfr-rr power of such public servant; or t c o To resist the execution of any law, or of any Iegal process; or o 'lo commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or By means of criminal force or show of criminal ' force to any person, to tak.e or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of r,l,hich he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or o By means of criminal force or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. The points stated above form the substance of the offence of 'unlawful assembly,under section r4r ofthe Ipc. 11. The constituents of an offencc under section 141 of the IPC - Unlar,r,ful Assembly - has alreacl-1 been detailed above. The 6 section clearly states that it must be an assen-rbl1, of five or more persons rvith the persons having a common objr:ct. In the present case, the Chargesheet mentions only tino accusec persons of which the petitiorrer is the accused No.2. The number ,rf accused persons is not known since the chargesheet does not mention the total number of persons who formed the alleged unl:lu,ful assembly on the designated day and time of the alleged incident. The only statement in this regard in the chargesheel is that "...on

15.i0.2019 at about 19.i5 hours, the BJp ccntestecl candidate Kota RamaRao along with BJP President Laxman (wrongly named as Lamman) and other leadcrs were can: paigning in t.he Dirshincherla Village...". This lack of specificit,r u,ith regard to the number of persons who formed the unlawftrl as;sembly is further aggravated by the Permission granted by the Returning officer, g9- [-{uzurnagar Assembly constituency on 13.10.'.r,org w,hich grant permission for conducting the rally procession 1s.10.2o19 from

9.30 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. for 'l5O Members Supporters'.

12. rn Mohan singh u. state of t unjabl, the Supreme court held that section 141 makes it clear that it is only u.here five or more persons constitute an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born ' ArR 1963 sc \74 .\ I t 7 subject to the other requirements of the section with regard to the common object of the persons composing that assembly.

13. Hence, the fundamental requirement of ,an assembly of five or more persons with a common ob.iect,for such an assembly to be as an 'Unlawful Assembly' is ex facie missing in this case. tn any event, the permission granted to the petitioner for holding the road_ show on 15"1o.2o19 would automaticall-v take away the ,unlawful, component of the assembly. L4- section r43 of the lpc awards punishment for being a member of an unlawfur assembry r.l,ith imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

15. Section 341 of the Ipc ar,vards punishment for wrongfur restraint with imprisonment for a term extending to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. L6. Section 339 defines 'wrongful restraint, as the act of voluntarily obstructing any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in anv direction in which that person has a right to proceed. The provision carves out an exception wherein if a private way over land or water is obstructed by a person who in good faith believes himserf to have a rawfur right to obstruct, it 8 \ ''ould not amount to wrongful restraint. The illustration to section 339 clarifies the definition of '*,rongful restrain t by providing that rvhen a person obstructs a path along which another has a right to pass u'ithout believing in good faith that he has er right to obstruct such path thereby preventing the other person from passing, wrongfull)' restrains the other person. i

17. The complaint which forms the source of the chargesheet is dated 15.i0.2o19. The complaint similarly lacl<s particulars with respect to the charge under section 341 of the IPC. The relevant paragraph of the Complaint being set out as uncl,3r: "on 15-10-2o19 at 7.15 pM, the BJp contesting candidate along with President Laxman and leaders harze done Road Show in the village of main road at Dirsenchcr.la around 30 minutes. The Traffic is herd up the road use:r of travelrer people suffered. It comes to violation of MCC.,' I B. In the facts of the present case, the permission given to the petitioner for the rally to be held on 1s.10.2019, would dilute the 'er\: basis of the charge of wrongful restrairLt. Further, the chargesheet fails to explain the application of the charge of section 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint) to the lacts of the case. 'l'he chargesheet only states that the accust:d persons were campaigning in Dirshincherla village which lerl to the general I public being caught in heavy traffic. In fact, the exact words used in the chargesheet are testimony to the lack of particurars with regard to the offence of wrongful restraint as no witnesses who were restricted in any manner from proceeding in any direction, were examined to infer commission of the offence punishable under section 341 of IpC. 19' From both the complaint as well as the chargesheet, it is clear that the alleged offence only speaks of the accused, holding up traffic for thirty minutes on 1s.1o.20r9 at 7.ts p.M. causing difficulty to the people travelling on that road by reason of the traffic building up' Apart from the chargesheet and the complaint lacking these essentiar deta,s, it is also not understandable as to how the persons travelling on the road can be restrained, as understood in sections 339 and 34r ofthe lpc, on the open road by reason of traffic congestion. The chargesheet in any case suffers from several ambiguities which armost render the chargesheet incomprehensible. 20- section 34 of the Ipc rerates to a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of alr r,rrhich w.ourd make each such person liable for that act in the same manner as if It were done by him alone. -.^__-..-__-_*-i .jri+*t *"..%*.-. . .. .- ----- -=**------rea"*-*;:---*-:#rm?-; :;&#**5&{.r}ii&ri* " l 10

21. Ser:tion 34 of the IPC contemplates the criminal act being committed bv several persons pursuant to a 'cc,mmon intention' i.e., each of those persons must be party to the common intention u,hich constitutes the criminal act. The constitue'nts of section 34 has been dealt with in several cases which, inter alia, have held that if common intention is proved but no overt ar:t is attributed to the individual accused, section 34 of the IPC will be attracted as it essentiall,r, involves vicarious liabiiity. Hornet,er, if participation of the accused in the crime is proved but common intention is absent, section 34 cannot be invoked. In other words, Secl-ion 34 requires a pre-arranged plan and pre-supposes prior concert which means that there must be prior meeting of minds; Sr,'.resh Sankharam Narugare u. State of Maharashtra2.

22. [n tl-re present case, the facts as stated in the Chargesheet disclose that the accused persons, including the petitioner, held a road-shorn' ,"r'hich caused heavy traffic build up re'sulting in people being stuck in traf{ic for thirty minutes. 'Common intention' requires a pre-arranged plan and action in pr.lrsuance of that objc<:t/plan. It cannot. by any stretch of imaginalion, be said that in this case. the pre-arranged plan of the accusecl was to obstruct ' zorz 1s; lr r 16 I I n i I I I I I i ; ;T -., "|]} suffering to traverers for rhirty rninutes on rhe 23' courts have given a strict interpretation to sectio n l4gof the Ipc - offence comrnitted by member of unrawful assembry in prosecution of a common object. It is we, settred that sect ion 74g of the IpC prescribes vicarious criminal Iiability for all members of an unlawful assembly where an offence "t" ls committed by any member of such unrawfur u"*"r_u,,, .,_ ssembly in prosecution of a common obiect of that assembly' one of the essentiar ingredients of Section r4g is that the offence ought ro have been committed b-v any member of an unlawful assembly and Section l4l makes it clear that it is only where five or more persons constituted an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born, provided of course, where the persons composing that assembry act with common object: Mohan Sinqh u. State of punjabs. 24' The requirement of charge_sheet details r,vas observed by the Supreme State of {J.p.a. The Supreme Court Officer must make clear and complete Charge-sheet so that the Court can s being filed with sufficient Court in Sharif Ahmecl U held that the Investigating entries of all columns in the clearly understand which crime 'AIR 1.963 sc 1,74 2024 SCC OnLine 5C726 J 12 has been committed by r,r,hich accused and u,hat is the material evidence availabre on the fire. The role played b'the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the Chargesheet, for each of the accused persons. i-{ I 25 lnstances of the vague statements made i, the chargesheet arc reproduced belorv. ""'on l5. ro- 20rg at about 19.15 hours, the BJp contested candid,te Kotzr Rama Rao alo'g r,vith BJp prr:sident Laxman (tt'r'nql' ,ermecr. "r- . Lamman] and other leaders rvvere camp:'rigning in the Dirshincheria village ..ra ,.rr.y were herd road shon' for 3o minutes at main road, birshincherra village by violating the erection rures. which is violated th,: Mcc rules in this rnoment the people was suffering *itf, h..uy traffic. Hence, he *'as requested to take necessary acti.n against B.Ip cont'estecl czrndidate I(ota Rama Rao as per ECI Itures.,, ...Later, visitccl the Dirshincherla village minuterl.y, therc is no the sccne of offcnce... scene of offence which is situated at examined the scerle of offence incrim inating evidence has; not found ai The LrT'-9 acldrcssed a retter to the Revenue Divisionar officer, Huzuranagar Rcvenue division with a request tc furnish the allotment order copy of the complainant L*-r *rrl arotted the MCC re;rm-rV ir-r charge in view of Huzur";g;;'Lssembry by elections- 20 rg and Road shou, campaignirrg p"i-rssion... Accordingly, on 12.06.2022 the Lw-1 was carfl,r to ps and appeared before Lu'-6 and submitted his ""pr*,ir. In which he. stated .thert, presently photo and video graph e,u,idence has not availabre about the oifence and also riot'.u-,rr.ut. of mv t r t 7 I3 appointment order of the MCC team-lV Huzurnagar assembly by elections-20 19. 1n charge at ...on 15.10.2019 at about 19.15 hours at Dirshincherla village at mean time the accused A- I & A-2 were gathered with other party members formed Unlawful assembly at Dirshincherla viltage conducting road show by abstracting the traffic and free flow of public moments at about 3O minutes, in which the peoples are faced struggles..."

26. The above instances can be said to be fatal to the particulars of the offences under which the petitioner has been charged. [n essence, the Chargesheet does not contain any particulars, as per the d.icta in Sharif Ahmed's case (supra), of the individual offences committed b.v the accused persons including the petitioner (A-2}.

27. It is also to be noted that the Criminal Complaint filed against the petitioner and the pursuant Chargesheet appears to be actuated by malice. Even though speculative, the intent of harassment, if not malice, would be evident from the Chargesheet itself. The contents of the Chargesheet make it clear that the petitioner mav have been booked under the offences of unlawful assembly and ',t,rongful restraint by reason of the petitioner belonging to a rival political party. The Chargesheet itself bears \ testimony to the political rivalry since the factum of the petitioner being the 'Presiclent' of that political party has been mentioned t4 several times in the Chargesheet. The Chargesheet also mentions that the accused No.l seeks to contest the election from that particular village as a candidate from the said political party. The malice is also e",ident from the attending facts such as the evidence produced b-v the witnesses or1 behalf of the State being virtual copies of each other. The translated versions of the evidence given on the part of LW.2, LW.3 and LW.4 are identical. Likewise the evidence given by LW.5 and LW.6 are also identical.

28. The fact of malice was one of the consi,lerations before the Supreme Court in State of Llaryana 7s. Bhajan Lals, '*,here the Supreme Court listed out certain situations where the inherent pou'ers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised. One of the situations mentioned in Bhajan Lal is ,rhere the Criminal Proceeding is manifestly attended with mala ficle andlor where the proceeding is maliciousl_v instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

29. Therefore, this Court accepts the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the Criminal Case was instituted with t 1992 Srpp (t) Supreme Court Cases 335 I I I I '-7 .l r5 malicious inrent by reason of the flact that the petitioner/accused No' 1 is a member of the rivar poritical party in the state. 30' An accused shourd not be compelled to face Triar when the contents of the chargesheet do not disclose the commission of the offence on the face of it. In such case, the court shourd see whether the allegations, prima facie, estabrish the offences under which the accused has been charged. Apart from the chargesheet not fulfilling the requirement of the offences in the present case, the chargesheet is also reprete w,ith vague ailegations which have been extracted above. vague allegations do not satisfy the test of the petitioner being asked to stand Trial since that wourd be abuse of process of law 31' Inherent powers under section 482 of the cr.p.c. should be exercised r,r'here the a,egations in the chargesheet/FIR/complaint on its face do not constitute the offence or where the charges are not supported by eviclence. Section 4g2 ofthe cr.p.c. is invoked to prevent abuse o.f process of law and can be exercised to prevent such abuse or to secure the ends ofjustice. 32' The facts in the present case satisfy the above conditions. The chargesheet does not discrose any offence committed by the \ \ , { { l(i \ \, .: '-- -.1 ".\ petitioner/ accused No.2, cognizable or otherwise, hence no purpose would be servecl if the 't'rial \,lrere to continue against the - petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.394 of 2023.

33. Crl.P.No.7619 of 2025 is accordingly ailovred by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/a<:cused No.2 in C.C.No.394 of 2023 for the offences under sections 143 and 3.11 read with section 34 of the IPC on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate under Prohibition Act (Excise Courl-)-cum-Special Court to try the offences having punishment less than 3 years relating to elected MI)s and MLAs at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. All connectecl applications are clisposed o1'. Interim orders, if ar,y, are vacated //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Huzurnagar, 2. The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate under Prohibition Act( Excise Court)-cum-Special Court, Huzurnagar.

3. The SHO Nereducharla, Suryapeta. 4. One CC to SRt. VTMAL VARMA VASI REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CC to SRt. pUBLtC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OpUC] Two GD Copies PK/PSL r A- -,)-::..::a..::*:---.,,,--.*:'^-:,,;-:,_i:,;*riiqfi}.-mIrF*,*r-*-:.]]';:.-.;+j..i.i;ffi*.mi:i*%:q.e-e^i_.*'--... '&d HIGH COURT I DATED:2610912025 ORDER r;rE Sf4 o, + o lE ilr'J ztffi 1\ I t 'i f:7,.1 , -, t I I n CRLP.No.7619 of 2025 (A- _A- Jl \ro \ \t