He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Anita Thakur and v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and othersr and Mullapudi Bapi Raju v. State of

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14208 ot 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is flled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 & 5 in C.C.No.4989 of 2025, on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 186 and 341 read with 149 of lPC.

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 & 5 as well as Sri Jltender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. The facts of the case are that on 26.07.2023' at 13:'1 5 hours' while the Sub-lnspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station (complainant herein) and other staff were performing patrolling in the limits of Saifabad Police Station, they noticed some members of Police Job Aspirants , who are 5 in number, organized "Protest Programme" in front of Gate No.1 of Dr.BR Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat for condemning implementation of G.O.Ms.No.46 in Police recruitment and obstructed the duties of the Police officer and 2 thereby caused obstruction to the free flow of traffic oi the secretar'at employees and wrongfully restrained the other vehicle s unlawfully on the main road. When the police personnel tried to s top them, they obstructed their legitimate duties. As such, they ,ir ere taken into custody. On enquiry, they came to know about th: names of the petitioners. The statements of L.Ws.z & 3, whrt are the eye witnesses, are recorded during the course of investig ation and the lnvestigating officer has fired charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.4989 of 2025. Challenging the said proceedir gs, petitioners filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that contents of the charge sheet rack the ingredients cf the aforesaid offences. There is no criminar intent. There is no unrar rfur assembry. They went in front of Gate No.1 of Dr.BR Ambedl ar Telangana Secretariat to organize protest programme fo.condemning implementation of G.O.Ms.No.46 in police recruitmenl With regard to the police recruitment, the Government has chang ed the Rules after issuance of notification without considering th. said aspects, the lnvestigating officer has raid charge sheet against re petitioners and others and the rearned Magistrate has taken cogr izance of the 3 aforesaid offences against the petitioners and others. Petitioners are students and they are appearing for competitive examinations. The police implicated them with a false motive. The lnvestigating Officer did not record the statements of any independent witness. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Anita Thakur and others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and othersr and Mullapudi Bapi Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh2 and Kothapally Mahesh and others v. State of Telangana 3 . With the said submissions, petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners along with others have raised slogans against the Government and conducted dharna in front of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat building which caused obstruction for free flow of traffic and caused inconvenience to the public. All the contentions raised by the petitioners are defenses which cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS. The petitioners have to face trial and prove their innocence. With the said submissions, she sought to dismiss the present Criminal Petition. ' 1z0o61 tsv scc 525 ' zoz+(l) nlo (crt.) oat (np) ' c rl . p. t't o. 386 5 o f 2 oz4 dr.oi .06.24 4

6. As discussed supra, the offences against the letitioners are punishable under Sections 341,353 and 143 lpC real with Section 149 tPC.

7. Section 341 IPC deals with wrongful restraint The same is extracted below: restraint.- Whoever t cluntaily '341 Wronqful obslrucls any person so as fo prevent that pet, proceeding in any direction in which that pers ight to proceed, rs sald wrongfully to resi person. son from tn has a ain that (Exception)- The obstruction of a pivate way or water which a person in good faith believes I have a law,ful right to obstruct, is not an offe,t the meaning of this section." tver land imself to ;e within

8. Thus, there should be voluntary obstruction of : ny person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any dirtl :tion in which that person has a right to proceed. ln the presenl case, except saying that the petitioners conducted protest and r: ised slogans against the Government causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, they have not stated about the wrongful restraint by tt e petitioners. However, the lnvestigating Officer has not recorded fl" 3 statements of any independent witness. Therefore, this Court is of the view that 5 the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of Section 341 IPC.

9. Section 353 IPC deals with assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty. The same is relevant and it is extracted below

353. Assau/f or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.- Whoever assau/fs or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public seruant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either desciption for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Therefore, to attract the said offence, there should be assauit and use of criminal force to any person being a public servant in execution of his duty as such public se.rvant with an intention to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as public servant. ln the statements of L.Ws.1 to7, there is no mention about the said obstruction or using of criminal force by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L'Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of Section 353 lPC. 6

10. Section 141 IPC deals with unlaMul assembly t is relevant to extract Section 141 IPC hereunder "141 . Unlawful assembly.- An assembly of ti e or more persons is designated an "unlawful assenl ly", if the common object of the persons composing tha assembly t's- (Firs|- To overawe by criminal force, or shor,v force, the Central or any State Government o' or the Legislature of any State, or any public srt exercise of the lavtful power of such public sen'i (Second)- Io reslsf the execution of any lan legal process; or (Third)- To commit any mischief or criminal t other offence; or of criminal Parliament vant in the nt; or espass, or or of any (Fourth)- By means of ciminal force, or shotv force, to any person, to take or obtain posseli, property, or to deprive any person of the enjo right of way, or of the use of water or other ight of which he ls in possession or enjoyr enforce any right or supposed ight; or (Ftfth)- By means of criminal force, or show, force, to compel any person to do what he i:; bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legalty do. Explanation.- An assembly which was n when it assembled, may subsequently become , assembly." of ciminal 'ion of any tment of a ncorporeal enL or to of ciminal not legally entitled to t unlawful n unlav,iul Thus, there should be criminal force with an inter tion to obtain possgssion of property or to deprive any person of t njoyment of a right of way etc. ln the present case, none of the wilr esses, L.Ws.1 to 7 stated with regard to the same. Therefore, this )ourt is of the I 7 viewthatthestatementsofL.Ws.ltoTlacktheingredientsof Section 141 lPC.

11. Section 149 IPC deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object. The same is relevant and it is extracted below' "149. Every member of unlaMul ASsemblv ouiltv of offence committed in DTOSE cution of common ob ect.- lf an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."

12. lt is relevant to note that Section 149 IPC does not create separateoffencebutonlyitdeclaresvicariousliabilityofallmembers of unlawful assembly for committing of offence with common oblect as held by the Apex Court in Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v' Dudabhai Patel.a '< ' atR zotS sc 2+u 2 8

13. lt is also relevant to note that to attract Secti >n 149 lpc, it must be shown the criminal act to accomplish the ccr rmon object of unlaMul assembly. lt must be within the knowl dge of other members likely to be committed in prosecution of ri rmmon object. When the members of assembly were aware or likell, .o be aware of the offence being committed in prosecution of comnr, ,n object, they would be liable in terms of Seclion 14g lpc. The sa < principle was also held by the Apex Court in Waman v. State of M:r rarashtras .

14. lt is also apt to note that common object is the r rain ingredient to attract the offence under Section 149 rpc. ln th() present case, none of the witnesses, L.Ws.1 to 4, stated about the r:r mmon object. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statementr; cf L Ws.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of Seclion 149 lpC.

15. ln State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 6 the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercisec rery sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest < f rare cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is so.l ;ht, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability cr genuineness or otheruvise of the allegations made in the complaint c r in FlR. ln the sa[d- judgment, the Apex Court laid dc wn certain '(zotr) z scc zgs u 1t992; srpp. 1 scc 335 Mlrq- at.b!6rt:7, 9 guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Seclion 482 ot Cr.P.C. The same read as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, iustifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code 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 nof disc/ose the commission of any offenre and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no invesligation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just anclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 10 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted t t any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (un ler which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the in:;t tution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there, s a specrfic provision in the Code or Act concerned, providin; efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestty ak nded with mala fide and/or whdre the proceeding is malicious y instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on t rc accused and with a view to spite him due to private aal personal grudge.' The said principle was reiterated by the Apex court i r a catena of decisions. ln the light of the above, continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.4989 of 2025 against the petitioners is rn abuse of process of law.

16. ln the result, proceedings in C.C.No.4989 of 2021, on the file of the learned on the fire of the rearned r Additionar ( hief Judiciar Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed in respect of petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 & 5. However, it is m:r re crear that the proceedings in the above said c.c. may go on in rer )ect of other accused.

17. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, 11

18. [Vliscellaneous applications pending if any, . shall stand closed. I Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To 1 . The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Hyderabad' i. fn" St"tlon House Officer, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad 5. fwo CCs to the public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana, at 4. One cc to Snt. p neu SHANKER, Advocate [oPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUTI Tpk/Pr HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.142OB of 2025 11 iAoE I -r 'lljllf 4i:; i- it *..,' i,r, * ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION q ( \