The High Court · 2025

15. Sioa Srinu. S/o Linoaiah Aged about. 42 Yea.s. Occ ,quto Mechanic R/o - rf."lro i-2zlt, Gas Cdmpany Street, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District' 16.Pendem Sadanandam, S/o Laxmi Pathi Aged about' 311 Years, Occ Auto - Mecnanic R/o. 19-102, Vasavi Nagar, Nakrekal Mandal, \algonda District lT.GuthaMadava Reddy, S/o Janakiram Reddy Aged.ak'out' 57 Years' Occ' Agriculture R/o. 2-55, Korlapahad, Kethapalli Mandal, Na lgtonda District'

18. Gutha Manjula, Wo Madava Reddy Aged about.. 52 Yoars, Occ. Agriculture Rio 2-55, Kbrlapahad, Kethapalli Mandal, Nalgonda Disttict'

19.Mita Salman @ Salaiah tvlatti, S/o MallaiahJMatti Ag.ed irbout.46 Years, Occ' Business R/o.-i -64, Kethapalli Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District'

20. Gandamalla Laxminarayana, S/o Bala Swamy Aged a lout. 40 Years, Occ' -- AgriCultuie Rto 1g-2t1. Vasavi Nagar, Nakrekal Viilage arnd lvlandal Nalgonda District. 21 . Manginapally Raju @ Nagaralu, S/o Bixam, aged at out. 44 Years, Occ' - Friva"te f mfloye6 ai6 l -2atz, Cheemalagadda, Nakn)k al Village Nakrekal tvlandal, Nalgonda District.

22. Ganji SAi Ram, S/o Late Venkateshwarlu Aged- about. 37 Years, Occ. Prtvate - Em jloyee R/o 8-1, Moosi Road, Nakrekal Village and ltilandal, Nalgonda District

23. Sriramoju Venkanna Chary, S/o Vishnumurthy Aged arout. 52 Years, Occ' Carpenter R/o 1-58, lnuparirula Village, Kethapalli Mandzrl' Nalgonda District' 24. Mopuri Chandramouli, S/o Vrshwanatham .Aged abc'ut 51 Years Occ' Caipenter Rto. 17-253, Cheemalagadda, Nakrekal /illage and fvlandal, Nalgonda District. 25 Vuggid iS riniays, S/o Mallaiah Aged about.- 30 .Years, Oc<;. Business R/o 19- 63/'11 Vasavi Nagar, Nakrekal Village and Mandal, Nalgo rcla District.

26. Paka Shankaraiah, S/o Lingaiah Aged about. 45 Years: Occ. Business R/o' 7-63, Moosi Road, Nakrekal Village and Mandal, Nalgon'jer District.

27. lvluddam Balra.1u, S/o Venkanna Aged about.3s Years, C'c:. Busienss R/o 21- 4/3, Reddy Colony, Nakrekal Nalgonda District.

28. Kakkireni Shiva, S/o Yadaiah @ Yadagiri Aged about. 28 Years, Occ' It/echanic R/o. 5-11, Tatikal Road, Nakrekal Village arrd Mandal. Nalgonda Distnct.

29. Kumbam Ravi, S/o Yadaiah Aged about. 32 Years, Occ. Photographer R/o. 7-51. lnupamuia Village, Kethefally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

30. Nandagatla Santosh, S/o Venkateshwarlu Aged abc'ut. 42 Years, Occ' Busine"ss R/o.13-136, B.T.Colony, Adavi Bollaram Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict.

31. Bandi Srinu @ Nalla Srinu, Sio Laxmaiah Aged about 2:i'/ears, Occ. Student R/o 4-5911, Gtrenkalapally Village, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District. 32. Penduvala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Kishan Rao Aged about. 49 Years, Occ. Agriculiure R/o. 1-93, Bondapalem, Kethapalli Village arrd Mandal, Nalgonda District. 33 Madagoni Shankar, S/o Bixamaiah Aged about. 3a Yea.-g Occ. Reporter R/o 1-1 1 ,' korlapahad Village, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda t)istrict.

34. Nakirekanti Narendar, S/o Mattaiah Aged about. 35 Y€ a's, Occ. Agriculture Rto 3-71t1 , Marrur Village, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda [)is;trict

35. Paladugu Venkatesh @ VenamVenkateshwarlu, S/o Anjaiah, aged-about. 35 Years, bcc. Flower Detoration R/o.2-67, Thatikal Road, Nakrekal Village and Mandal. Nalgonda District.

36. Ravirala Dayakar, S/o Venkaiah Aged about 52 Years, Occ Vegetable Business R/o. Bopparam Post, Kasanagodu, Kethapalil Mandal, Nalgonda District

37. Chowgonisrinvias @ Srinu, S/o Bakkaiah Aged about. 41 Years, Occ. Agriculture Rlo. 20-14, Pannalagudem, Market Road, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3S.Yasarapu Venkanna, S/o Janaiah Aged about 45 Years, Occ. Agrlculture R/o. 16-168, Katamaiah Bazar, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District

39. Bandlapalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateshwarlu Aged about. 54 Years, Occ. Agriculiure Rto 12-107t3, Santosh Nagar, OPP MRO Office Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

40. Kandala BNixam Reddy, S/o.Ranga Reddy Aged about. 55 Years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Nakrekal Village and Mandal Nalgonda Dtstrict. 41 Y anala Shiva Kumar, S/o Mohan Reddy Aged about 28 Years, Occ. Agriculture R/o 2-18, Kadaparthy Village, Nakrekal Mandal. Nalgonda District.

42. Marri Sandeep, Sio Chennaiah @ Lalar Aged about 30 Years, Occ. Mechanic R/o 5-16, Cherkupally Village, Kethapalli Mandal Nalgonda District 43 Adla Ramesh, S/o Chennarah Aged about. 36 Years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. 3-55, Korlapahad Village, Kethapalli lvlandal, Nalgonda Distinct.

44. Boija Vijay, S/o Yadaiah Aged about 26 Years, Occ. Driver R/o 3-68/3, S C Coibny,'lriupamula Village, kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...Petitioner/Accused No.1 to 28, 30 to 45 AND 1 The State of Telangana,, Through P.S., Nakrekal Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. Athi Sathrsh, S/o not known to petitioner PC-3872 of Nekrekal Police Station Nalgonda District ...ResPondenUComPlainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pteased to quash the c.c.No.272 of 2024 on the file of special Judicial First Class Magistrate at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad and quash same against the petitioners/A-1 to A-28 and A-30 to A-45. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ln the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition' the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners/A-1 to A-28 and A-30 to A-45 in cc.No.272 of 2(t24 on the file of the Special Judicial Frrst Class Magistrate at Manoranjan C o'nplex, Hyderabad pending disposal of the present quash petrtion. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petttion and upon hearing :he arguments of Sri R.PRASANTH. Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri S,yed Yasar Mamoon. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICtr K. LAKSHMAN CRIM INAL PETITION No.E507 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: fleard Mr. R. Prasanth, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for l" respondent.

2. l'he present Crirninal Petition is filed under Section - 528 ol Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shorr, '[3NSS') to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2024 pending on the llle of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manoranjan Complex, I-lyderabad. The petitioners hercin are Accused Nos. I Io 28, 30 to 45 in the said C.C.No.272 of 2024- The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are punishable under Sections 143, 153, 188. i4l, 504 rcad with I49 IPC.

3. On the complaint dated 09'03.2020 lodged by the 2'"t rcspondcnt, the Police, Nakrekal Policc Station, Nalgonda District, has registered a case in Cr.No.34 of 2020 against the petitioners herein and other accused. In the said complaint, 2nd respondent has alleged that the petitioners and other accused formed into an unlawtul assembly, put DJ (Disc Jockey) songs, obstructed the tratllc and _== 2 danced on the road, without obtaining prior permissio i. When L.Ws. I and 2 questioncd their acts, A.l abused L.Ws. I rnd 2 in hlthy Ianguage. I'herefirlc, 2"'r respondent r.equcsted the pol c,:, Nakr.ekal, to take ection agirirr:t thc []ctiti()ners. ,1. During the corLrse of investigation, the lnver;t.gating Officer recorded thc statctnents ol the cornplainant/2"'l respo'ulent as L.W. I, I)olicc Constablc ol thc said Police Station as L.W.l t.ruit r.endor as I..W.-3. Sarpanch of N4angalapatll, Viltage as t-.W..1. ranch rvitnesses as L.\\/s.5 and 6 and Lrvcstigal.ing Olflcer as L.W.7.

5. On consicleration o1' thc said staterrents. 1rr: Investigating olficer laid charqc sheet against the petitioners hereir .Ihe same was taken on flle vidr. C.('No.272 of 2024. petitioners lted r.l.re presenr crirninal pelition ro cyuash the procecdings in the said C.rll.

6. As discussed supra, the oll'ences alleged agairrst the petitioner ale under Sections 143, i53, I tt8, -111. 504 read with t,l9 IpC. It is the specific contentjon of the petitioners herein that the (.( nrents of charge sheet lack the ingredients of the aforesaid ollcrc:es. The said provisions are exlr'acted below:- i,'rl. ,\ssatLlt or criminal forcc to dctcr public scrvant li,rnr dischargc o1'his dut1 . -\\ihoevel assaults or uses criminal force t , any pg15sn bcing a prrblic scrvanr in thc execrrtion of his duty rrs -.uch public 3 servant, or with intent to pre\,ent ol' dcter that person from discharging his dutl as such public sert"'ant. or in consequencc of anything done or altempted to be done by such pcrson in the lawful dischargc ol his dutv as such public servant- shall bc punished with imprisonntcnt of' cithcr dcscription for a term which may extend to two years. or with llne. ol u ith bolh. l4l. Punishment tbr wronglu[ restraint.-Whoever uronglulll' rcstrains any pcrson shall be punished with simple imprisonuent for a term rvhich may extend to one month- or rvith finc which mal' cxtend to fivc hundred rupccs. or u,ith both. 504- lntentional insult with intcnt to provokc breach of the peacc. Whoevcr intentionalll insulls- and thcreby gives provocation to an1' person. intcnding or knowing it to be likely that such provocatiotr u'ill cause hinr to break the public peace. or to commit any othcr of'Gnce. shall bc punished *'ith imprisonment of cither description lor a terul u,hich may extcnd to two years, or with fine, or with both.'

7. 'l'o attract the offence under Section 504 of IPC, there should be ir-rtention to insult thereby which cause provocation to any person intending or knowing it to likely such provocation will cause hirn to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In the preser-rt case, even if the atlegations made by 2''d respondent in the complaint dated 09.03.2020 are considered to be true, the same are lacking the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of lPC. There is no allegation ol intentional insult to provoke breach to public peace etc' I Thus, the contents of complaint dated 09.03.2020 ar,d statements of L.Ws.l to 4 lack the said insredients

8. It is reler ant to discuss Scction 188 of IPC and the same is cxtracted belorl':- "18t1. Disobedience to order duly promulgatcd l public sen,ant. \\'hoe r er'. knor.i ing thar. by an order pront rl latetl b1.. a public scrr ant lari Iirllv crnporvcred to promulgale :Lu lr ot cler. he is drlccted to ahstain fionr a cerlain act- or to L.rk(: ccrlain order uith ccrtnin proltertv in his posscssion or. rrn.lcr his lranagcrlreut- disobcrs such direction- shall. il disotreclicnce carrses or tcnds lo cause obslruction. tlt () \/ilnce or injurv. or risk ol-otrstrrrctir)n- anno-\.ancc or injur1,, r( nr lcr:;on Iau,fulll cnrplovcd. be punishcd rvith simple imprison lcnt lirr a term rvltich rral ertend to one tnonth or rvith finc r.hiclr nral cxtcnd to trvo hundretl rupccs. or $,ith both; anl il such disobcdicnce ciruscs ()r trends tu cause danger to h rrran life. health ol salbty. ol causcs or tcltds to causc a riot or a,liar,, shall be ptrnished l ith inrprisonment of cither dcscription lirr a lcmt which rnal extetrd Lo six nrontlis. or with line rvhich nray cxtcnd [o onc tlrousand nrpecs. ()r u ith botl.r. lixplanltion. It is not ncccssary that the of1'cu lcr slrould intend to protluce harnr. or contemplate his disohr.dicnce as likely kr producc harni. It is sulficient that he knows olthe order uhich hc disobcys. rnd thal his disobedience prodr.c,:s. 61. i5 likely to producc. lrarm. Illustration An ordcr is prornulgatcd by a pub ir servant lau'fulll emporvered to promulgatc such order, dircc ing that a religious plocession shall not pass do$,n a certail -.trLtl. A a 5 knorr ingly disobevs the order, and thereby causes danger of riot A has con.rmittcd the offence defined in this section."

9. It is relevant to refer the principle laid down by the I ligh Court of'Andhra Pradesh in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rcp. by Public Prosecutorr, Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The Statc of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, Wcst Godavari District: and State of llaryana v. Bhajan Lal3, whercin the proccclure to bc tbllowed in the cases involved with the off-ence undcr 188 of IPC, rvas discussed.

10. In N.T. Rama Rao (supra), it is held as follows:- 6 l},en il the allegation that the petitioner conducted public rneetings at tliree road .junctions contrary to the permission accortled fbr conducting of a public meeting only at one spccified placc is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 186l could havc been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. lf such a permission is granted under Section 30 of thc Police Act. l86l and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Crinrinal Proccdurc rnandates that the complaint in this regard has to bc made by thc public servant concemed or some other persorl to u4iom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enablc any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present ' Criminal Pcrition No.5i2-l o12009, decided on 17.09.2009 ? Criminal Petilion No. I 5248 ol20l6, dccided on 26. I0 2016 ' l teez) supp. I scc 335 I 6 case. thc charge slteet was liled b1, the Sub lnspeclo.,tl Policc, rvho could not havc bccn thc authoritl, to qrant pemrisii,rn for the public rnecting and therelbre. the complaint/chargt. slreet is in violation ol'thc ntandatorl prorision o1'Section 195( r.lr)of (lodc of Crimirral I)r'ocedure. 6) That iLpart. thc ol'lence allcgt,tl tl ltarc hecn cornlrrlted undcr Section 2[,1] of thc Irrdian Pcnal (odc hl.tltc pctitioncr. rLnd othcrs is obviouslv in consequencc to the alleged oll'ence rLrrlr:r Section [88 of Indian Penal Codc and is not an indcpendent ( l the sanlc. livcn otltcruise. thc conduct oi public nlecting a{ llrrcc road junctions ()r ollstruction to tlrc tralflc crluld nor lt.rve becn cOnsidered as carrsinrl anl dtrnger or-in-jur1 to itn) pcrs,)rt ln so lirr as the otrstruction in anr ltLrblic rvar is conccrned- rrlt clr can als0 be covcrcd hy Section 2tli ol rhc lndian Pcnal Code. rre charge shcet citcs onll one rritness lo spcak aboul thc tralli. j:rn causcd by the roacl sho*,. Ilut, u,hcn thc crtr.rduct of the publir r reeting rt least at onc place has becn pcrmittcd and il the gatircring lor thar public nrccting rcsulted in anr inconvenienoe l.r way ol' ohstructing the trll'llc. the sante cannot bc considercrl tr bc u.ith necessar) guiitr nrcns rea [() c()nslrllc the exiStcnce ()l xn ofl'encc punishablc rrnder lnciian I)r:nal Codc. [.lnder the cir,ruutstanccs. nonc of thc otlcnccs allcgcd can bc said to havc anr rcasonablc basis and in anv vicr.v. tl.rc contplaint/charge shc.t bcing in violation ol'Section J95 (l) (a) of( odc of(lrirrrinal pr, c,:tlure. has ro tail. 7) As rhe complaint has f'ailed duc 1o its unsustair ahilitl. the proceedings in their entiretv havc to lail, though thc Ist accused alone approached this Court by ri.a1 oithis Crinrinal pc irion.,' I I In Thota Chandra Sekhar (supra) rr:l ,,ing on varlous .iudgmentrincluding N.T. Rama Rao (supra) and th,r euidelines laid 7 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), it was he ld as follorvs:- ".....Cuidclinc No.(r. rvhich says that uherc there is an express lcgal bar engralled in an_v of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (unde r which a criminal procceding.is institutcd) to the institution and continuance ol thc proceedings and/or where there is a spccific provision in the ('odc or thc concemed Act, providing efficacious remedr to redrcss thc grier"ance of the party, a lcarncd Singlc .ludge ol lligli Courr of Judicaturc at Ilyderabad lor the States ol' 'l elangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the procccdings in thc said Cl.C. by exercisillg po\ler under Section 482 ol Cr.I'.C'. lt lirrther hcld that thc proceedings shall not be continucd duc to technical dclect of obtaining prior permission under Section - l5i (2) of Cr.l'.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filod by V.li.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C." lL [n order to convict any person for commission of any offence punishable under Section - 188 IPC, the Courl has to satis! itself that the accused had not only violated the order promulgated by a public seruant, but also the accused had actual krowledge of issuance ofsuch order. lhe same is lacking in the present case.

13. It is apt to note that to attract olfence under Section 353 of IPC, there should be crirninal force to deter the public servant from discharge ol public duty. In the complaint, dated 09.03.2020 and statements of L.Ws.l to 4, there is no allegation that the petitioners I 8 used fbrce to deter the public servant. Thus, the conle 1ts of complaint and statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of t rc said of-tbnce t+ [t is also apt t() note that not)c of the rvitnesse: i.e . [-.Ws. I to 4 alleged that the petitioners restlained them ri ronglirllv. 'lhe lnr estigating (ltficcr did not exauine any rvitness ri ho is alleged to have restrainccl by the petitioners. \S In the liglrt ol'tlre said discussion, prosecutin!: ttre pctitioners fbr the said off-ences in the subject C.C.No.27l of'l()-l-. is irn abusc o1- process of law iI In State of Haryana vs. Rhajan Lal/'the Af,.x ('otrr1 has also laid clown certain guidelines/parameters tbl exercise o'porver ol this Court under Scction ,182 Cr.l'].C. and the sanle are c\tr a,itcd herein:- "( I ) Whcre thc allcsations ntacle in th. lu st jnirrrnation repon or the complaint. even if th.r lrc takcn at thcir face value and acceptcd in thcir errtiretl, tlo not prinra facie constitute anv offl'nce or ntilk( ( rrt il casc apainst the accused (2) \\ihere thc allegations in the first inlbrntatiort rcport antl other rnaterials. i1'anr. acconrpanvinq thc I I[.] (lo nol disclose a coqrrizablc offencc. juslil'r'ir u an investiqation by police officcrs undcr Section I .it ( I ) ol' thc ('ode ercept unde-r an order ol'a llagistrarr' .iithin thc purview of Scction 155(2)ofthc ('ode. (3) Wherc the uncontroverLcd allegations rnaclc in thc [[[{ or conrplaint and thc evidence collectcd irr s,rpport I 1992 Supp (l) SC(' 135 9 of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and makc out a case arainst the accused. (4) Where the allegations in thc FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence hut constitutc only a non- cognizahlc oflence- n.r inrestigation is pemitred by a police oflicer without an ordcr of a Magistrate as contcmplated under Section I 55(2) of the Code. (5) Whcre the allegations ntadc in the lilR or oomplaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion rhat there is sufficient ground for procceding against lhe acc used. (6) Where thcre is an exprcss legal bar engraftcd in any of thc provisions of the Code or the Act concemed (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of thc proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act conccmed, providing elficacious redress lor the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended w'ith mala fide and/or where the proceedin! is maliciously instituted ,,vith an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on thc accused and n ith a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." The said principle was also reiterated in subsequent judgments.

17. In the light of the aforesaid principles and parameters, as discussed supra,, in the complaint dated 09.03.2025 and the statements of L.Ws.l to 4 there is no allegation that the petitioners used intentional physical lorce or threat so as to cause apprehension of harm to L.Ws I and 2 and thereby prevent them from discharging their legitimate duties and that the petitioners insulted L.Ws.l and 2 so as to provoke them to cause breach of public peace or to commit i0 any other offence. Thus, the same are lacking the rrgredients of the off'ences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, the prosecution failed to make oul a case against the petitioners

18. [n the tight of the afbresaid discussior . this C]rirninal Pelition is alloned and the proceedings in C.Cl.lic,.27?- of 2024 pending on the file of the Special Judiciat Magistrate of First Class at N4anoranjan Oomplex. Hyderabad, are hereby quash:cl against the peritioners l.relein - accused Nos.l to 28, 30 to 45 As a sequel. Lniscellaneous petitions, il' an1 . pending in the criminaI petition shall stand closed. SD/. A.d S.GOWRI SHANKAR //TRUE COPY// $H:; -r To, Hyderabad. 1 The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate at Manora .rl an Complex, 2 The Station House Officer, Nakrekal Police Station, Nallonda District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Slate of Telangana 4 One CC to SRI R PRASANTH Advocate [OPUC] at Hyderabad [OUT] , 5. Two CD Cooies l'M.. \ ',, NVI},SA HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 ORDER CRLP.No.8507 of 2025 , ril : i "'' .2.'t:' ,/:. . ./ J' i,' .: IJ !ia ,,) -<, * 2 , lv0l/ M * ,a i.a,lc,-a.D 1)..- (0. t' o \\ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q \r( .^\