The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, he High court may be pleased to call for the records relating to and connectecl with proceedings in FIR No. 386 of 2025 dated 21.06.2025 registered on the file r f the station House ...RESPONDENTS Officer, Mancherial Town P.S., Ramagundam Commisionerate, Mancherial District against the Petitioners/Accused. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 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 grant stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners/ Accused in FIR No. 386 of 2025 dated 21.06.2025 registered on the file of the Station House Officer, Mancherial Town p.S., Ramagundam Commisionerate, Mancherial District, pending the disposal of the Main euash Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. AMRUTH RAO JOOKANTI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. Arun Kumar Dodla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: - TH E HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMZ N CRIMINAL PETITION No.7938 OF 2l) :5 ORDER: Heard Sri Arnruth Rao Jookanti, Iearned c t unsel for the pctitioners and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned A,l litional Public Prosecutor appeariug fbr State. 2, The present crirninal petition is filed under St'r tion 528 of the Bhalatil,a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for sho t ' the BNSS') by thc pctitioncrs to quash the proceedings in Cr.l. r.386 ol 2025 pending on the file of Station House Officer, Mancher i rl Torvn Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, Mancherial l) strict.

3. The petitioners are arraigned as accused N<r .1 to 30 in the alorcsaid Clrirne. l-he oflences alleged against them ar: ,-mder Sections 189 (2), 126 (2), 132 read with Section 190 of the Il raratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Ibr shor1, 'BNS'). On the complaint cr Led 21.06.2025 lodged by the 2n'r rcspondent, Police Mancheli r Torvn, have registered the subject crime.

4. Irr the complaint dated 21.06.2025, 2"d resy cndent alleged that on 20.06.2025, while 2'd respondent - Head Ct,r stable-1912 of Mancherial Police Station along with staff performini; patrolling duty I 2 at Bellampalli chowrastha area, at about I l.l0 a.m., the petitioners herein along with some others, bclongs to BRS party, formed into unlarvful asscmbll,, sat on National I{ighrvay-361 at Bellanrpalli Chowrastha, caused inconvenience to the general public, obstlucted their vehicles, started slogans against tl-re Policc dernarlding an est of accused persons in Cr.No. 38312025 of Manchcrial Police Station, without taking prior permission frotn concemcd authority. When the Police tlied to clear the said unlarvlul assenlbll' to avoid law and order problem, they did not head thcil rvords and obstructcd them trom discharging their legitirnate duties by pLrshing them and caused inconvenience to the emergency service vehicles by btocking the road. I-,ven thcy formed into unlawtul assernbly and sat in front in Mancherial town Police Station, raised slogans against the Police demanding arrest of accused in the aforesaid crirnc. The petitioners herein also obstructed their tegitirnate dutics by blocking the entrance gate of the Police Station and caused inconvenience to them. This incident was also videographed by Potice. Therefore, he sought to take necessary action against the petitioners.

5. To quash the said First lnformation Reporl, petitioners filed the present petition contending that 2.d respondent is a police ,.) J constable. He cannot lodge the present complaint z rd the Station House Officer, Mancherial Town Police Station, carr; ot register the subject crime. Thcrc is no public nuisance. The Inve; Lgating Otficer did r.rot record the statement of any independent witnt'r s. 1'' petitioner is Ex.MLA liom \'[ancherial Assembly Constituency. I e is implicated in the present crime due to political rivalry. He has every right to enquire about investigatior-r in a parlicular crir re. Therefore, registration of the sul'rject crime against the petitioner; lrerein is abuse of process of law. 'l'l-rc contents of thc said complaint o 2nd respondent lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against he petitioners. With the said subrnissions, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in the subject crime.

6.\\4.rereas. leamed Additional Public ) 'osecutor, on instructions, w'ould submit that the lnvestigating Offic :r recorded the statements of eight (8) witnesses including two const r ,les as L.Ws. 1 and 2, two busincssrnen as L.Ws.3 and 4, Home (i rard as L.W.5, driver as L.W.6 and mechanic and private empl,r .ee as L.W.8. Investigation is pending. There are serious allegat < ns against the petitioner herein. They have conducted dhama in iont of police 4 station. Scuttling investigation at the threshold is impermissible' Therefore, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition'

7. In the light ol the aforesaid subrnissions, it is relevant to extract the aloresaid o ft'ences:- fir,c or tlore i[ the coumon 189-Unlau ful asscmbll'.-(1) An assernbll' of persons is dcsignated an ''unlawful assembly", obiect ol the pcrsons composing that assembly is- (.r) to o,"erawc by criminal forcc, ot shorv of ctirniual tircc' the bcntrol (;ovcrnm;nt or any State Govcrnmelrt or l)arlianlent or the Lcgislature of anl State. or any public servant ill thc ereLcisc ol [he lawl'ul pou,er of such public servant; or (b) to resist the exccution ol any law, or of any legal proccss: or (c) to commit any mischicf or criminal trespass, tlr othcr offctlcc; (d) b,v means of criminal force, or show of criminal lbrcc' to any f"..on, ,o take ol obtain possession of any property, or to deprivc lny p"r.on of thc cnjoymcnt of a right of way' or of the use of *u,"i o, other incorpoieal right of which lre is in possession or enjoymcnt, or to eufbrce any right or supposed riglrt; ot (c) by rneans of criminal lbrce, or show of crimir.tal tbrcc' to io-p.t uny person to do what he is not legally bound lo do' or to omii to do what he is legally entitled to do' (2) Whoever, be ing aware of facts which render any asscmbly an .,niu*frt a-ssembly.- intentionally joins that assenrbly' or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful asscmbl; and such n.,"n,b", shall be punished with imprisonmcnt of cither dcscription fo. u t"rm which may extend to six months, or with fine' or with both.

126. Wrongful restraint:- (2) Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shalt bc punished *lttl ,irnpt" imprisonment for a term which nlay extcnd to onc month, o; with iinc which may extend to five thousand rupees' or with both. -t 5

132. ;\ssault or criminal force to dcter public sen r discharge of his duh'.-Whoever assaulls or uses crirr to arl\, person being a public servant iu the execution of :r such public scrYant, or u.ith intcnl to prevent or detcr tl tiorn discharging his clutl as such public scrvan conscqucncc of anvthing dor.rc or lrttetnpted to be dor t pcrson in thc larvlirl dischargc ol his duty as such pub i shall bc punished rvith inrprisonntcnt of cither discrilrr term u'hich nrav ertend to t\\o ),ears. or with fine, or rvit r nt from ral lbrcc s duty as rt person ,orin by such servant. on lirr a roth.

8. Admiuedlr-. invesrigarion pending.'fh: Investigating Otllcer has recorded staternents ol the aforesaid eigl-t (8) witnesses All of them in one voice stated that the petitioners i-ur c formed into unlaivtul assemblv on the NH-36J road at Bellamp r ii Chowrastha without taking anv pliol pcrrr- ission tl-om concemed aL hority, caused inconveniencc to the gencral public by sitting or the road and obstructing their vchicles, raised slogans against the p,;1gs demanding arrcst ol accuscd in Cr.No. .18i of 2025 of Mancheriat police Station Whcn the police tried to cleal thcm to avoid law an( )rder problem, the petitioners did not hecd to their request. Thus, rrey obstructed L.W.l and staff liorn discharging their legitimate dur es and caused inconvenience to the ernergency services and also .', hicular h.affic. Prirna facie, there are serious allegations against the p,: itioners herein. Admittedly, investigarion is pending. I I i I l I i l ! 6

9. ln a matter like this, scuttling investigation at the tkeshold is not wamanted. In N[/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtrar, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid ceftain conch-rsions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High Coufts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of ti'rc Constitution of India. which are as under: iv) 'fhc porver ol quashing should bc cxercised sparingly rvith circumspection, in the 'rarest ol rarc cases'. (The rarest ol rare cascs standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with thc norm which has been lonnulatcd in the context of thc death penalty. as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FlR/complaint, quashing of rihich is sought, thc court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to tho reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations tnade in the F I R/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at thc initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FlR should bc an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; '. AIR 201 sc l9l8 a 7 viii) Ordinarill,, the courts are barred from usur ,inB the .jurisdiction of tho police, since the two org:r the State opcrate in tr.vo specific spheres ol activr Thc inhercnt power ol' the court hor.r'evcr. recogniscd to sccurc thc cnds of justic prcvcnt lhc abovc ol the process by Scitior: .; of ies. is, 182 Cr.P.C. ix) 'Ihe functions of the.judiciary and the polici are eornplelncntary. nol or crlappilr gr: x) Save in cxccptional cascs rvhcre uon-interter nce rvould rcsult in rniscarriage ol.justice. the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stzl: of investigation of otl'ences; xi) L,xtraordinary and inhercnt porvers ol the Corr. L do not conler an arbitrary.iurisdiction on the Court ,r act accordine to its whims or capriccl xii) lhe first inli)nlrirliorr repon is n,, an cncyclopedia which must disclosc all f acts and dc ails relating to the ollence reported. Therofbre, r.l,he r the investigation by the policc is in progress, thc c rurt should not g,o into the rnerits ol the allegations r the FIR. Policc rnust be pcrmittcd to complett: the investigation. It would be prernature to pronouuc( the conclusion based on hazy laots that the complaint FIR does not deserve 1o be investigated or that it arnc rnts to abuse of process of law. During or lter in:*estigation, if thc investigating olficer finds that thcre is no substancc in the application rnadc br the T I 8 complainant. the investigating officcr may file an appropriate repor?summary before the leamed Magistrate r.i,hich may be considered bv the learned Magistrate in accordance with the knorvn procedure; xiii) The porver undcr Section 482 Cr.P.C. is vcry rvide, but conl-erment of rvidc porver requircs thc court to be cautious- It sasts an onerous and more dilisent duty on the court: xiv) Florvei.er, at the same tirne, the courl, if it thinks fit. rcgard being had to the parameters of quashing and the sell-rostraint irnposed by, law, tnore particularll, the paramcters laid dou,n by this Courl in thc oases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the .jurisdiction to quash the FIR/oornplaint; and

10. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen lndia Private Limited v. The Statc of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution. '. AIR 2021 SC 93 t 1-l 9

11. In Stato of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal-3' the .1 pex Court has also laid down certain guidelines/parameters lor exerc i e of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the sanll are extracted herein:- '(l ) Whele thc allcgations made in the irst information repofi or the conrplaint, evcn if the are taken at their. lace value and acccpted in their en i ety do not prima lacie constitute any oflence or makc it it a case against the accuscd. (2) Where the allegations in the lirst infbrmation r: ,ort and other rraterials, if any, accompanling thc lrll. do not disclosc a cognizable of-fence, justilyinir an invcstigarion by police officers under Section 156t I r of the Code excepl under an ordcr of a Magistrate u i ltin the purvierv o f Section l5 5(2) ol the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made il lhe FIR or complainl and the evidence collected in su:r rorl of the sarne do not disclosc the commission o:' ury offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the F IR do rot consti L e a cognizable o11'ence but constitute only a ron- cognizable offencc, no investigation is permitted I v a police officer without an order ol a Magistr-a.r as contemplated under Section 155(2) of thc Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or comp rint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the ba; r of which no prudent person can ever reach a ust conolusion that there is sufficient ground fbr proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted i r .rny of the provisions ol the Code or the Act conc: Lred (under rvhich a criminal proceeding is instituted) ( the institution and continuancc of the proceedings an l/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or tct r 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 10 concerned, providing eflicacious rcdrcss for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manilcstly attended rvith mala llde and./or u4rere Lhc proceeding is maliciousll, instituted u'ith an ulterior nrotive lbr urcaking vcrlgcance on the accusccl and riith a view to spite him due to privatc and personal grudge." With the said findings, relying on the paramcters laid down in Bhajanlal (supra), thc Apex Court quashed the FIR against the accuscd therein

12. The Couft under Scction 528 olthe BNSS is not requit'ed to see which pafiicular ot}'ence is rnade out, it has to see whether the gravity of allegations disclose cot.nnlission of an offence. In this regard, the lollowing paragraphs of Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhanda are relevant:

15. Before rve oroceed to tcst the corrcctness of thc imougned order. u'c must bear in mind th at at the stase of decidins rvhether a criminal Drocccdin sorF lR, as the case mav bc, is to be q uashcd at the threshold or rt or not, the allcsations in thc F I ll or thc oolice re the com D laint. includin s the matcrials collccted durin g investi ation or inq uin'. as the case mal'be. are to be taken at thcir face va lue so as to dctcr mine whcther a orima facie case for investi ation or oroceedi nsa the acc used. as the case m av he. is madc out. The correctness of thc allcgations is not to be tested at this stage.

16. To commit an offence, provides otherwise, mens rea unless thc penal statute is one of the essential \zozay ro scc szr 1t ingredients. l'.xistence o1' mcns rea is a question I fact rvhich may'bc inferred fiom thc aot in qucstion as ,r tll as the surrounding circurrstances and conduct of the a,r, ,rsed. As a scquitur, rvhcn a pafty alleges that the a,i( Ised, despite taking possession ol thc tluck on hirc, has tr :d ro pay hire chargcs for months losether, while makir.g lalse promises for its pa1,ment. a prinia facie case, relle(r vc of dishonest intention on thc part o1'tho accused- is nt r. e out which may require invcstigation. [n such circumsta r cs, il the FIR is quashed at the verv inccption, it urL d bc nothing slxrrt of an act u,hich thw.arts a le6i rnate investigation.

17. It is trite larv that FIII is not an cncvclo na c lia of all imnutatio ns. 'fhercfore, to tcst lyhcther aI FIR discloses commission of a cognizablc offcncc x'h ,r is to bc looked at is not anr omission in the accusa t i( rr s but thc sravamen of the accusations contained ther in to fild out whcther, prima facie. somc cosnizable r &Ilsg has been committed or not. i\t this sta e. thc tt rrt is not reo uired to asccr(ain as kr which soecific I lence has becn committed.

18. It is only after invcstigation at the ti rc of charge. when matcrials collcctcd framin t uring investisation are beforc the court, the court has l( drarl an oDlnlon astofor commission of which offc rcthe accused should be tried. Prior to that if satis fi r l. the court mav even discharse thc accuscd. Thus. x r n thc FIR allcees a dishonest conduct on thc Dart f the accused which. if sunoortcd by matcrials, vould commission of ,a disclose r Icnce, cognizable investig 4tion should not be thnar ted bv quashiethe FIR.

19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR dls not become infructuous on submission o[ a police rcpo - LLnder Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police rcport hr been submitted. pa(icularly when there is no stal r.r the investigation, the court must apply its mind 1o thc nri terials submitted in support of the police report before re .ing a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedinrs hould I i i t2 bc quashed or not. More so, u'heu the FIR alleges an act which is reflcctivc of a dishoncst conduct o1'thc accused'

13. ln the prcsent casc, admittedll'', investigation is pending and it is for the Investigating Oflicer to corrsidcr the said aspects'

14. As discussed supra, during the course of investigation, the Investigating officer.has recorded the statements of 8 witnesses. All of thcm in onc voice stated that the pctitirtners fon-ned into unlawful assemblyonNH-362roadatBellampalliChorvrasthawithouttaking any prior pennission from conccmed authority, caused inconvenience tothegeneralpublicbysittingonthefoa(landobstructingtheir vehicles, raising slogans against the police and demanding to arrest the accused in Cr.No.383 of 2025 of the satnc policc station'

15. In the light olttrc atbrcsaicl principlc and discussion, prima facie, there are specilic allegations against the petitioners helein' Investigation is pending. Thereflore, this is not a rarest ol rare case to quash the proceedings in CL.No.386 ol 2025 pending on the file of Mancherial Town Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate' Mancherial District against the petitioners herein. The present case is not the rarest of the rare cases.

16. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this court, that the Investigating Olllcer has already issued notice \ 13 under Section 35 (3) of BNSS, to the petitioners. He is ,ot conducting investigation in accordance rvith law and he is harassin-.: the accused.

17. If the Investigatir.rg Officel in Cr.No.383 o'1025 lailed to take action against tlte accused and lailed to conduc investigation properly, the petitioners have to take recoursc und( I law but thcv cannot conduct dhama in front of the police station, obs ruct the police tioni discharging their legitimate dr.Lties and cause ll l, OnVenlenccr [O thc general public and vehicles on the NII- 363

18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, tlr ; Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.386 of 2[ ]5 pending on the flle of Mancherial l-own Police Station. Ramagundarn Cornmissionerate, Mancherial District. Thercfori. the present Criminal Petition is liable to be dismisscd

19. In the result, this Criminal Petition is disnri sed. However, the Investigating Officer in the subject crime shall conduct investigation strictly ln accordance with the procec rre laid down undcr BNSS. I 14 t', As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition sha [[ stand closed SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1, The Station House Officer, Police Station Mancherial Town, Ramagundam District.

2. One CC to Sri. AMRUTH RAO JOOKANTI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUfOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

4. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7938 ot 2025 'I .it gi; g !'- u r\lLt -.} I ;\ c5co i CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED k