The High Court · 2025

8. Mr. Sagnik Mridul, Son of Chitrak Kumar Pal, Aaed about 20 years, Occ. tvl.A English" Language Education 2nd year Stuoeht 5t EFLU, Resident of Vaishno Bhavan 05, Shantinagar, Jharpada, Bubaneswar, Orissa 7561 006.

9. Ms.Deepanchal Gupta, D/o. Sumesh Gupta, Aged about 22 years, Occ. M.A Literary & Cultural Student at EFLU, RJo. Ward No.12, Home No,178, Gali Gujjaran, PO Dinanagar, Tehsil Gurdaspur, Punjab 143 531.

10.Ms.lvlegha Sathranarayana Kobil, D/ o. Sathianarayana, Aged about22 years, Occ. M.A Comparative Literature Student at EFLU, Resident 46/ 10, Sapstar CHS. Manpada Road. Star Colony, Nandivali, Dombivali East, Kalyan, Thane, Maharastra 421 2O4. 1 1 . Mr. lbrahim Khan, Son of lmam Khan, Aged about 19 years, Occ. Persian 3'd year Student at EFLU, Resident of Panyla Kalan, Banner, Rajasthan 344 033. j I :: /'/ ,,/ 12-Ms.Yusra Abdul Waheed, D/o. Mohammad Abdul War:ed, Aged about 21 years, Occ. B.A (Hons.) English final year Student at t FLU, r/o H.No 2-5- iolt, ftat No 2O5, Block No A, Sara Hohes, Upperpally )illar No.174, PVNR Express Flyover, Rajendranagar, Attapur, Hyderabad.

13. Mr.Sanath Sudesh Nil, S/q. Sudesh M, Aged about : 3 years, Occ. M.A Computational Linguistic 2"o year Student at EFLU, R/o i/2258, Balan K Nair Road, Ashokapuram, Kozhikode, Kerala 673 001.

14. Ms. Shinde Kaiwaly Gajendra, Son of Shiqde Gajendra F umar R, Aged about 20 years, Occ. M.A German Literature 1'' Student at NU Delhi, R/o. Flat No.506, Aryamitra Florina, Narsingi, Kokapet, R.R.Distrir; TS 500 075.

15.Mr. Salman Aabid, Son of Aabid Ali, Aged about 19 years Occ. B.AArabic 3'd year Student at EFLU, R/o. Kodara Grant, Sidharthnaga-. UP 272207.

16. Mr. Zainab lqbal, D/o. Syed lqbal Ahmed, Aged aboul 21 years, Occ. M.A Computational Linguistics 2"o yuear Student at EFL.I , Rio. 548/83, Teji Khera, Manaknagar, Bakshi-ka Talab, Lucknow, UP. ...Petitioner/,,ccused-l & 3 to 17 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prose ;utor, High Court at Hyderabad, Through lnspector of Police, Osmania Univr rsity Police Station., Hyderabad

2. Prof. Narasimha Rao Kedari, Son of Venkateswarlu, r\ ted about 51 years, Occ. Professor (Registrar ln-Charge), English ancl Foreign Language University, Resident of Flat No.203, D.No 2-9-64, \. Azmath Nagar, Kalyanpuri, Uppal, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that rr the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition he High Court may be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings against the F'( titioners herein i.e., Accused No.1 and 3 to 17 in C.C.No.10055 of 2023 or the file of the lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, at Hyder rbad, in the interest of justice. l.A. tlO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that ir the crrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition he High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.10055 r t 2023 on the file of the lV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Namp. ly, at Hyderabad, including personal appearance of the petitroners herein r.e , Accused No. 1 & 3 to 17, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of ^ Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr B. NARS|NG, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, the Additionat pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and Mr P.S RAJASEKHAR Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SMT. JI.'STICE JUWADISR DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.13428 of202t ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 r f the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (tor short ,BNSS') by he petitioners_ accused Nos.1 and 3 to '1 7 seeking to quash the procr edings against them in C.C.No.10055 ot 2023 pending on the file o,the learned lV Additional Chief Metropolitan tvlagistrate at Nampal /, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 342 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Telangan;r prevention of Disfigurement of Open place and prohibition of Jbscene and Objectionable Posters and Advertisement Act, .1997. 2 Heard Mr. B. Narsing, learned counsel for l e petitioners, Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for res tondent No.2- de facto complainant and Mr. tVl.Ramachandra Fi :ddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondr: rt No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the acc tsed, who are the students of the English and Foreign Languages Un r ersity (EFLU), Tarnaka, Hyderabad, stagecl a hunger strike from ,t6.1 1.2023 to 14 11 2023' locking the gate of the University and prevr: rting staff and students from entering or leaving. They confined profe;;ors, teaching 2 and non{eaching staff, forced other students to join the strike, disrupted academic and administrative activities, raised objectionable slogans against the VC and Proctor, disfigurerd University property, and threatened withdrawal of FlRs and show cause notices issued for their indiscipline

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The de facfo complainant merely stated in the complaint that it was 'reliably learnt' that the petitioners, among others, led the protest, without personally witnessing their involvement. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioners only participaled in the protest. ln fact, more than 200 students participated in the protest. Except the University professors and employees, no independent witnesses were examined No specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, and the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. Even though the petitioners conducted a hunger strike, no disciplinary action was taken and they have left the University after completion of their course.

5. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anita Thakur vs. Government of Jammu and Kashmirl, wherein, it is held that Article 19(1 ) of the Constitution of lndia confers freedom of speech to the '1zote; ts scc s:; J citizens of the country and enshrines that peaceful prr test in orderly manner without offensive language do not constitul : an offence Further, he relied on the judgment of this Court in C;r .P.No.3865 of 2024, wherein, the proceedings against the accusec therein were quashed in similar circumstances. As the petitione'r are similarly situated, he prayed to quash the proceedings against ttrr, petitioners.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respon lent No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor in one tone submih that the strike disrupted academic and administrative activities, ar r the accused confined University staff and students, caus I g significant inconvenience. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petitic r

7. Admittedly, the petitioners gathered to express heir viewpoint and staged a protest against the indifferent attitude c f the University Management and other grievances faced by them. The record shows that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the r rason for such delay remained unexplained. lt is evident that the de fac o complainant was not an eye witness to the incident and the comlt aint is entirely based on hearsay. When more than 200 students par icipated in the protest, it is not known as to why the petitioners were s ngled out and implicated in the case. lt remained unexplained zl ; to why the authorities chose to lodge the present complaint against the petitioners instead of resorting to disciplinary measures within :he University I 4 framework. No specific overt acts ai-e attributed to the petitioners to establish wrongful confinement or criminal intimidation of the de facto complainant or others. Likewise, there is no material on record to show that the petitioners affixed, inscribed, or exhibited any advertisement or writing in any public prace without the consent of the owner, occupier, or person in management of such property. The statements of the University professors and emproyees, who are interested witnesses, appear to be in cyclostyled manner, and apart from their statements, no independent witnesses were examined. The aforesaid judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, this Cou( is of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to sheer abuse of process of the law. B. For the foregoing discussion, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 to 17 in C.C.No.10055 of 2023 pending on the fite of the learned lV Additional Chief tvletropolitan Magistrate at Nampaily, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous titions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.C.DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The IV Addl. Chief i/etropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad 2 The Station House Officer, Osmania University Hyderabad.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Hyderabad [OUT] 4 One CC to Mr. B NARSING, Advocate [OPUC] 5 One CC to IVR P.S.RAJASEKHAR, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ( rty Police Station, Ii :te of Telangana, at R(,/P\r /Ai _ ,/ HIGH COURT DATED: 0411112025 \ ORDER CRLP.No.13428 of 2024 t =::-=-\ \1ES14 /t: 2 i JAt{ 2026 ? Y * Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Al owed. 'I I ! ! I I I l v