The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt/lemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 673 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Shadnagar for the offences u/s 353, 323,504,506 of IPC against the Petitioner/Accused LA. NO: 1OF 2025 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings incluQing arrest/ appearance of the petitioner/Accused in pursuant to C.C.No. 673 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Shadnagar, pending disposal of the above quash petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MADANU NARESH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Shalini Saxena, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA I)EVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12175 ot 2')25 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to quastr lhe proceedings in C.C. No.673 of 2025 against the petitioner-acctred No.1 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, a Shadnagar, for the offences under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

2. Heard Mr.Madanu Naresh, learned ::unsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned ,A ssistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has srrmitted that the petitioner has never assaulted any public servant;ud that he never obstructed their official duties. The allegations leve lled against the petitioner are false and that the complaint itself sl cws that it was filed with delay, wherein it is stated that the allegr:d incident has occurred on 06.03.202 1, but it is filed on 08.03.20,1 1 and the cause for the delay also is not explained, which itself sl- irws that it is a concocted case against the petitioners. He further s ubmitted that in Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnatak;r and anotherl it was held that force or assault must be made c,t t to attract the '(zo1sl7 scc 423 i: \ !-I\l 2 ETD,J Crl.P. No.l2175 of 2025 ingredients of offence under Section 353 lpc. He further submitted that the allegations so far levelled against the petitioner is that he removed the mask of an officer, which does not come under Section 353 or 323 IPC and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant pubric prosecutor has submitted that the delay cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings and that the statements of LWs.3 to 5 clearly point out that the offences under Sections 353 and 323 lp} get attracted and she therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record

6. A perusal of the record discloses that the allegations levelled against the petitioner crearry point out the prima facie case under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 lpc. The point of delay is a triable issue. The statements of LWs.3 and 5 further point out that the petitioner went to the MRO office, Nandigama on 06.03.2021 for filing a petition regarding ROR Act and requested to accept his petition and arrange for the acknowledgement, then the officials explained about the policy decision taken by the Government of Telanggta while repealing the old Records of Rights Act and 3 EfD,J Crl.P. No.12175 of 2025 introducing the Telangana Rights in Land and Pat:irdar Pass Books Act, that they do not have the right to accept the lietition, then the petitioner started abusing the public seru. nts by using unparliamentarily language and also started recorl ng in his mobile phone without taking prior permission, and started arguing with them in filthy language and when the Tahsilder came ou of her chamber and enquired about the matter, the petitioner abur;rd in front of her and pulled the mask of Naib Tahsildar. lt is further cisclosed that the petitioner has referred to an incident of Ex.Tahsild;rr Smt. Ch. Vijaya Reddy, Abdullpaurmet Mandal and threatened thai re would do the same with Tahsildar Office staff, Nandigama Mance I also. Thus, the allegations and the statements of the witnesse:; point out the offences levelled against the petitioner

7. ln Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. Stirte of Madhya Pradesh2, the accused were convicted by the trial r:ourt and on an appeal to the High Court, the High Court has disnr ssed the appeal and when the matter reached the Apex Court, the ,\pex Court held that: "Having considered the oral evidence and ll^ e medical evidence, we are constrained to concludo that the prosecution has not established that the aptirllant has assaulted or used criminal force against the trz F party. In ' (2024], a scc 244 4 ETD,J Ctl.P. No.12175 ol 2OZs fact, what transpires is that when the appellant was apprehended there appears to have been an attempt by the appellant to wriggle out and josfling and pushing appears to have happened, in the process of the appellant trying to extricate himself from the arrest. None of the ingredients of assault or criminal force have been attracted.,,

8. In the said case, the trial was concluded and after appreciating the evidence on record, the said concrusion was arrived at. ln the present case, the truth needs to be elicited during the course of trial. Hence, the said decision cannot be applied to the case on hand

9. rn Manik raneja and another v. state of Karnataka and another (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that: "The essential ingredients of the offense under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offense should have assautted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to comrnit such an offense. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offense under Section 3S3 IpC are not made out." ETD,J crl.P. No.12175 of 2025

10. With the said observations, the proceet ings against the appellant in the above said case were quashed. Eilt, in the present case, the allegations do point out that the petitioner has abused the staff in un-parliamentary language and also threa l.ened them and even when the officers tried to explain the repezrl ng of ROR Act, without Iistening to them he caused obstructior'r to their duties Therefore, the truth needs to be unraveled during t re course of trial and hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedirrgs at this stage However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense witl the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition s disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court provided he is represented by a counsel before tre trial court on every date of hearing and he shall appear befcrrr: the trial court whenever his presence is required during the courst of trial Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shal ltand closed. SD/. S.M A -LIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /?L-7 //TRUE COPY// ;ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Shadnagl . 2. The Station House Officer, Nandigama Poltce Station, Ct't erabad. 3. One CC to SRI MADANU NARESH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for rl-r-'State of Telangana IOUT] 6 Tuv.r C-F) Canics \ To, w HIGH COURT DATED: 141'1012025 ORDER CRLP.No.12175 of 2025 ( E 1,4 /\/ t *s q \ f:\ ., il : i;l ,:,1 (<, Lf C) u- ('.. / oH ,-H :::- DTSPOSING OF THE CRLP \o I t