It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public prosecutorr while dealing

This Petition coming. on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of plounds of Criminal petitron and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. M A MUJEEB, Advocate for the petitione*no itrl pubric prosecutor, for the Respondent No.1 and Non appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITT ON No.l 4744 of2024 ORDER: Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, leamed counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel representing leamed Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No' 1-State'

2. This Criminat Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in C.C'No'973 of 2024' pending on the flle of VIII Additionat Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against thc petitioners herein - accused Nos' I to 5 '

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos'1 to 5 in the aloresaid C.C.No.973 of 2024' The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 188, 341 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code (lor short 'lPC') read with 34 of IPC and Sections 21176' 67 of the City Police Act.

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No'2' the Police' Bhavaninagar, registered a case in Crime No'169 of 2023 ' dated KI,J Crlp.No.l4744 of 2024 2

03.12.2023 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. In the said complaint respondent No.2 alleged that as per the instructions of the Station House Ofhcer, police Station, Bhavaninagar, respondent No.2 was performing night duty patrolling on A3/04.12.2023 in the limits of pS Bhavaninagar. During his patrolling at about 22:50 hours on 03.12.2023, he noticed some gathering at Samad Hotel, Salam Chowk. He enquired with the public and came to know that the people, who gathered there, are invited by Al as MLA candidate from yakuthpura Constituency. They belonged to AIMIM party, who organised a ralty in the celebration o[ 1.r petitioner who won election from yakuthpura Constituency and they have started a mily by bursting crackers, beyoncl permissiblc time without any permission. 1'hey have created nuisance and disobeyed the orders of Hyderabad City Commissioner of police vide No.HCp/Election Cell/0368/2023, dared 01.12.2023. Therefore, respondent No.2 requested the Station House Officer, p.S,Bhavaninagar to take action against the I't petitioner and others.

5. During the course oF investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statemcnt of respondent No.2 as L.W.l, Sri C. Gopal, PC 30367 of p.S.Bhavaninagar as L.W.2, Sri Mohammed KL,J Crlp.No.14744 of 2024 J Arshad and Sri Syed Jilani, business people and eye witnesses' as L.ws.3 and 4. on consideration of the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein'

6. Perusal of the statement of L'Ws'2 to 4 would reveal that the l,t and 2nd petitioners are not present at the time of alleged incident. They have stated that they came to know that AIMIM party members organized a rally in the celebration of l't petitioner who won election as Member of Legisiature Assembly from Yakuthpura Constituency. None o[ them stated about the presence of ltt and 2nd petitioners'

7. tt is apt to note that Section - 188 of IPC which deals with ,disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as under: "188. Disobedicnce to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowing that' by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain froln a certainact,ortotakecertainorderwithcertainpropertyin his posscssion or under his management' disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury' or risk of KL.J Crlp.No.14744 of 2024 4 obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawtully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine .,vhich may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand mpees, or with both. Explanation._It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likery to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which hc tlisobcys, and that his disobedience procluces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illuslralion An ordr:r rs promul-qated b.v- a public servant lawfully empowered to prornulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass tlown a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the oflence defined in this section.,,

8. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public prosecutorr while dealing ..vith the offences under Sections - lgg and,2g3 of IpC, leamed Single Judge held as under: Criminal petition No.5323 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 r( KL,J Crlp.No.14744 of 2024 5 "5) Evcn if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeling only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. Ifsuch a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, l86l and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servanf concemcd or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code o[ Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector ol Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complainVcharge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(lXa) olCode olCriminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the o f'fence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 ot the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged olfence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent ofthe same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the KL,J Crlp.No.l4744 of 2024 6 obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffrc jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that puhlic meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way ol obsrructirlg the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with neccssary guilty mens rea to construe the existence oi an oilerrce punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation ol Section 195 (l) (a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due ro irs un- sustairrabiii-ry, the procee<iings in their eniireiy !tilr r' lc lail. though the lst accused alone approached this Court bi u,ay oI this Criminal Petition."

9. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S,H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari DistricP relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Raor and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of llaryana v. Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, guidetine No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the r. Criminal Perition No- 15248 of2016. decided on 26.10.20 t6 '. 1t,rel1Supp. I SCC j35 KL,J Crlp.No.14744 of 2024 7 provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concemed Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Singte Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andfua Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C'C' by exercising power under Section - 482 ot Cr'P'C' tt further hetd that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr'P'C' and taking cognizance on the complaint fited by V'R'O' and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr'P'C'

10. In view of the above' the lnvestigating Officer did not follow the procedure taid down under Section - 155 of Cr'P'C' Further, contents of charge sheet including statements of LWs'l to 4 lack the ingredients of Section - t88 of tPC' Therefore' the proceedings in the said C'C' for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed' \ KL,J Crlp.No.14744 of 2024 8

11. Section 339 of IpC deals with wrongful restraint, it is relevant and the same is extracted below: " Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception- The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an oflence w,ithin the meaning of this section.,, ,2. Section 341 of IpC deals with punishment lor wrongful restraint, it is relcvant and the same is extracted below: '-Vy'iroever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment lor a term rvhich rnay extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.,,

13. perusal of complaint of respondent No.2, the staternent of L.W. I recorded under Section 161 of Cr.p.C anC the statements ol L.Ws.2 to 4 would reveal that they lack the ingredients of ,wrongful restraint'' They never said that the petitioners voluntarily restrained or obstructed any person including them so as to prevent that person KL,J Crlp.No.l4744 of 2024 9 from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. Therefore, the contents of the complaint and the statements of the aforesaid witnesses lack the ingredients of wrongful restraint.

14. Section 268 of IPC deals with public nuisance, lt ls relevant and the same is extracted below: "A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to person who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage."

15. Section 290 of IPC deals with punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for and it says whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with hne which may extend to two hundred rupees.

16. None of the witnesses including respondent No.2 and L.W.2 to 4, stated about the alleged nuisance committed by the KL,J Crlp.No. 14744 of 2024 10 petitioners which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance [o the public. In iact, in the statements of L.$'/s.l to 4, there is no reference with regard to the presence of l't and 2"d petitioners. The allegations are made against party workers of AIMIM. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against thc petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences and the leamed Magistrate took cognizance.

17. Scction 21 of the Hyderabad City Police Act deals with the power to make rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order, lt is relevant and the same is extracted below:- "The Commissioncr of City Police, Hyderabad may, lrom time to time, make nrles not inconsistent with this Act in respect o[ the tbttowing. Such rules shall, in cases of Clauses (b) and (c), be subjcct to the control of the Government and with regard to the remaining clauses, sanction of the Govemment shall be obtained prior to the enlorcement of rules. (a)graniing licences to persons willing to accept employtnent at places rvhere goods are unloaded, and for carriage of passenger's baggage outside the limits of Railway stations and fixing a scale of ctrarges and rernuneration for labour ofpersons so employed; (b) rcgutating tralfic of all kinds, in public street or public places, and regulating the use of streets and public places by persons KL,J Crlp.No.14744 of 2024 walking, driving, cycling or accompanying or leading cattle, with a view to prevent danger, inconvenience or obstruction to the public; (c)regulating the conditions under which vehicles may be parked in public streets and public places, and the use of public streets as temporary halting places for caftle and vehicles; (d)prescribing the number and position of tights to be used on vehicles passing through public streets or public places, and regulating the manner of conveying timber poles, bamboo, ladders, bars, iron beams, boilers and other unwieldy articles and the route and hours for conveying such articles; (e)prescribing, subject to any notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner in this behalf, the roads along rvhich and the hours during which colpses may or may not be carried; (f)licensing for or regulating the following matters and where it is likely to cause inconvenience, delay, danger, or damage to the residents or the persons passing in the vicinity, prohibiting- (i)the keeping of a place of public amusement or place of public entertainment. (ii)the playing of music in public streets or public places (ii-a) the using of a loud-speaker in any public place, or places of public entertainment, (iii) the illumination in public street, or public place, on any building adjacent to the public street, by persons other than Government or Municipal officers authorised in this behalf, KL,J Crlp.No.l4744 of 2024 12 (iv) the carrying through public streets or public places gun-powder or other explosive substances,( v) blasting; (g) regulating the entrance olexit at any place of public amusement or place of public entertainment or at any meeting or public assembly and providing for the maintenance of public peace and the prevention of disturbance at such places; (h)Wherc licence or certificate is required to be obtained under this Act, prescribing the procedure for regulating or prohibiting the sale of any ticket or pass for admission, by whatever name called, to a place ol public amusement; obtaining it and fixing the fees for any such Iiccnce and certificate; Provided firstly that no person, by virtue of anything contained in this seclic,n and liccnce granted under the rules issued under iitis section shall bc autliorised to import, export, transport, manufacture, selI or possess any liquor or intoxicating drugs in respect of which a liccnce or permit is required under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, l3 l6F. or under any other law for the time being in fbrce and that the liability which may be incurred by such person under such law or any law for the time being in force relating to fire- rvorks, cxplosives and arms shall not be affected in any way by anything contained in this section;Provided secondly that a rule made under Ctause (g) shall not contain any condition requiring a liccnce for a place of public amusements unless liquor, sendi or any intoxicating drug as defined in the law for the time being in force is KL,J Crlp.No.14744 of 2024 13 sold in such places or unless such place is kept open for customers between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. (!) The power to make rules under Sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition of the rules being enforced after publication and they shall be published in the Official Gazette in the manner specihed in Section 84. QlNotwithstanding the provisions contained in this section on or in any rules made thereunder, it shall always be lawful for the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad to refuse a licence for or to prohibit the establishment of a place of public amusement or a place oi public entertainment by a notorious scoundral or a bad characler'"

18. Section 76 of the Hyderabad City Police Act deals with contravention of rules and orders issued under this Act, it is relevant and the same is extracted below:- "Whoever (a) contravenes any rule made under Section 2l of the this Act or any other order or prohibition lawfulty given undcr Sub- section (3) ol Section 21 or Section 22, or (b) reluses or iails to conform to any lawful and reasonable direction of any Police Officer given in accordance with this Act, or rvith any rule made thereunder, or (q) opposes or disobeys or fails to conform to any direction of the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad notified under Section 26 oe this Act; or abets opposition or refusal to conform to such direction shall (firstly) for any contravention of a rule made under KI-,J Crtp.No.14744 of 2024 14 Section 2l of this Act; if the said rule is made under Sub_section (a), (b) or (c) or under Clauses (first) and (second) of Sub_section (f), be punished with hne which may extend to fifty rupees: and if the rule contravened is made under Sub-section (d) or (e) or under Clause (third) or (fourth) of Sub-section (f), be punished with imprisonment lor a term which may extend to (8) days or with fine which may extend to fifty rupees or wirh both. (Secondly if the offence constitutes a contravention ol any prohibitory order made under Sub- section (2) or Sub-section (3) of Section 22 or Clause (c) of this Section, be punished rvith imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or rvith both, thirdly in orher cases, be punished with fine which may extend to hundred rupees.!'

19. Secrion 67 of the Hyderabad City police Act deals with Letting of firc work, buming straw, etc., or liring gun in or near a public place, it is relevant and thc same is extracted below:_ "Except at such times or places as are permitted by the Commissioner olCity Policc, Hyderabad lrom time to time, whoever in or near a street olpublic place (4) sets tire to or burns any rubbish or straw or any other matter, or (b) tights bonfire, or (c) lets ofl and throws a firervork, and whoever irr or within two hundred vards ol any street or pubtic place, KL,J Crtp.No.14744 of 2024 15 (!) wantonly discharge a firearm' or @) sends up a rocket or balloon' shall if he commits acts under Sub- sections (d) or (e), be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to eight days or fine which may extend to fifty rupees' andinothercasesbepunishedwithfinewhichmayextendtofilty rupees."

20. In the light ofthe aforesaid discussion' the contents ofthe charge sheet lack ingredients of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioners lrerein'

21. In Bhajan Lal3, the Apex Courl cautioned that por'r'er o1' qLrashing strould be exercised very spalingly and circumspection and that loo in the ralcst of-rare cases' While examining a cornplaint' quashing of ',r'hich is sotrght, Court cannot embark upotl an enquiry as to the retiability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint' The Apex Court in the said judgment taid down certain guidetines/parameters fot exercise ol powers under Scction - 481 of Clr'P C', u'hich are as under: "(t) Where the atlegations made in the first inlormation report or the complaint' even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute KL,J Crlp.No. i4744 of 2024 l6 any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justi$zing an investigation by police ofhcers under Secrion 156(1) ofthe Co<ie except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commissioi-r of any oifence anci make out a case agaiirsi the accuscci. (4) Where rhe allegarions in rhe FIR do not constitute a cognizabie olfence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as conternplated under Section 155(2) otthe Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absr-rrd and inherently irnprobable on the basis of which no prudent ( KL,J Crlp.No.14744 of 2024 I7 person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufhcient ground for proceeding against the accused' (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any ofthe provisions ofthe Code or the Act concemed (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concemed, providing efficacious redress for the grievance ofthe aggrieved party' (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior rnotive lor uT eaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and Personal grudge'" The said principle was also reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.

22. Thus, continuation of proceedings in C'C' No'973 of 2024 pending on the fite of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate' Hyderabad against the petitioners herein is an abuse ofprocess of law' ) ) KL,J CrIp.No.t4744 of 2021 l8

23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the principle Iaid down in the aforesaid decisions, this court is of the considered view that the proceedings against the petitioners in c.c.No.973 of 2024, pendlng on the file of on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the petitioners herein _ accused Nos.1 to 5, are liable to be quashed.

24. Therefore, the present criminal petition is ailowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.97 j of Zl} pending on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the petitioners herein _ accused Nos. I to 5 alone are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, it any, pending in the Criminal petition shall stand closed. SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ CTION OFFICER lU'

1. 2. J. 4. E

6. PSI, The Vlll Addl, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The station House Officer, Police station Bhavaninagar, Hyderabad District. A. Sudhakar, Occ: Sub-lnspector of Police, Bhavani Nagar P S., Hyderabad' One CC to SRl. M A MUJEEB, Advocate [OPUC]. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OLjT]. Two CD Copies. VV HIGH COURT DATED:20/03/2025 ORDER CRLP. f.lo. 1 474 4 at 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED o\,-*r("[ V4-);*)5.tYr' / ! 1HE S 1"4 '<o 29 JUL ( 2025 il :i 9e Stit., -::::--/