The High Court · 2025

The state of relangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High court For the state of Telangana, Hyderabad. ... Respondent Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c & 828 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Fetition, the High court may be pleased to call for records of cc.No.1z5 ot 2021 (crime No. 122 ot 2017 dl. odlo9l2017 of Nandipet p.s.) from Junior civil Judge-cum- Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, Armoor and euash the sam6 in the interest of justice as otherwise, petitioners will suffer irreparable damage and hardship which cannot be compensated in any mode. I.A NO:1 0F 2024 Petition unrler Siection 528 of BNSS praying that in tht: rrircumstances stated in the Memcrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the Hiqh Court may be pleased to pass in terim order of stay of all further procee'dings including appearance of the Pet t,oners in CC.No.175 of 2021 (Crime No 122 of 2017 dl. OOl09l2O17 of Narrdipet r.S.)from Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Armoor, pending the above Quash Petition irr tre interest of justice. This Petition corring on for hearing, upon perusing the lMemorandum of Grounds of Crimrnal F'etrtion and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, Adv'ocater for the Petitioners and Sri Surepalli Prasha rth, Assistant Public Prosecutor on berhalf of the Respondent. The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANTL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.151O5 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed undet Section S2B of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short .BNSS) by petitioners/accused Nos.6, 11, 15 and 2I to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.175 of 2O2l on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant public prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the material on record.

3. A con-rplaint dated 06.09.2017, is filed by Sub Inspector of Police, Velpoor Police Station. The gist of the complaint is that one Mr. Barki Mukesh uptoaded a post on Facebook in which he morphed and placed Lord Hanuman idol photo on a mosque along with the letters of Jai Shri Ram. There was unrest between members of Hindu and Muslim communities and started pelting stones at each other. To disperse the mob, the police personnel reached Jama Masjid in Nandipet at about 9:OO p.m. A crowd of 100 mob vrzere armed with stones. It is reflected in the complaint JAK. J RI.P l5l0i 202'l that on appearzrl.lcc it looked like a Muslim mob and rvlren asked to disperse ilnrr.e,Iately as it u,as an unlall'fu1 assen-rll1y, the mob pelted stones otr r'he police by paf ing deaf ear to the request' One armed police c(,ltstable bearing batch No.381 sttstaitierl bleeding injury to leg anc some others. A feu' names of the pe rsons are recorded in the cornplarnt.

4. Learnecl r:o tnsel appearing on behalf ol l,etitioners submitted that th: allegations levelled are unfounded as proper identification ,tannot be made in a mob of 100 that petitioners/ a.cc us;e d involved in pelting stones. lt is further submitted that ,.1 FIR's camc to be lodged one after th : other in different Police S'.ations r'vithin a span of half-an hor-u. I'etitioners were shown as il:cused in all the 3 cases and or e case was registered as S,C.ltlo.52 of 2O2O on the file of Assiste.nl Sessions Jude, Armoc,r. 'lhe trial Court by order, datecl 3L.1C'.2O23, 1n SC.No.52 of 2(t.2C acquitted all thc accused persorrs including petitioners hr:reir-r .rn the ground of lack of identifLcatic n cf specific persons wh c o elted stones. lt is further subrnit-ted that Crl.P.Nos.i 1 6:; rrnd 11166 of 2023 were filcd befor,: this Court by other acci,rseci 1)ersons to quash the proceedings irL (:C.No.784 of 2018 and C)(l.NIo.l75 of 202 1. This Court b1- conrrron order, 7 J JAK, J CRLP l5l0i 2024 ' - dated 28.17.2023, quashed proceedings against accused in CC.No.7B4 of 2ota and in CC.No.175 of 2O2L. Petitioners/ accused herein are arrayed as accused in cc.No.r75 of 2027. Hence, the proceedings against them in CC.No.i75 of 2021 be quashed.

5. Learned Assistant Public prosecutor appea_ring on behalf of State submitted that there are specific allegations that a mob was trying to disturb the peace and harmony of the society. Identification of persons involved in mob was done by local police constable(s) and it is only on such identification, the accused/ petitioners were named in the charge sheet and that it is a fit case for trial and no interference is necessitated as peace ald harmony in the society is utmost of importance and the same cannot be disturbed under any circumstances. It is further submitted that there were eyewitnesses to the entire incident and the trial be contihued against the accused/petitioners.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions

7. On 06.09.2017, a complaint is filed by the sub inspector of police, Velpoor Police Station. In the complaint it is stated that 4 IAK- J -]11-f 15105 202.1 being enraged ri'ir h a Facebook post, a mob of 2 ,:otnmunities \ (Hindu and It,{lrsLrnl assembied and started pelting stonr)s on each other. It is statec in the complaint that mob ol .l ()0 people at Jama Masjid alrpeared who looked like Muslim mob pelled stones, in which an h:-.led Police Constable bearing brttch No'38 1 sustained in.iurie,s. A few names of the persons rvho lrelled stones spelt o rrt. alter identification. Chargc' sh ee : bearing CC.No.175 of 121:,1 1 ls fi1ed.

8. Learned t:r-.unse1 appearing on behalf of petition,:rs invited attention of th i s; Court to order, dated 3 1 . 10 .2 Oil I i, passed 1n SC.No.52 oi '2O'.2O. Petitioners / accused herein are zrrrayed AS accused in S.(l I'Jo.52 of 2O2O. Trtal Court by 'rr<[er, dated 3l .lO .2023. l'ound the accused the rein including petitioners/ r,ps61-11;, rcl her-ein as not guiltl' lor offence'; punishable under Sections 'tr7, 148,3O7,333 read ivith 149 cf IPC. In the charge sheet u h ch is filed herein, sections 332 rtl-t ) 3'24 arc reflected.

9. Be that as it may, Crl.P.Nos.il165 and 11165 o'2023 are filed before this; Court by other accused for qua ;h ng of the proceedings agarnst them in CC.No.784 of 2018 and in tlC.No.175 5 JAK, J CRLP 15t05 2024 of 2021. Learned Single Judge of this Court, by a common order, dated 28.11.2023, held as follows: "13. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Iqbal @ Bala & Ors. Vs. Stqte oJ U.P. & Ors (2023 (5) Supreme 497) wherein it was held that: " 10. At this stage , wc r.l.ould like to observe something important. Whenever art accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurc (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the crimina-l proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides proceed agarnst the accused with an ulterior motive for r,r,reaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FlR/complaint is vcry w'ell drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainalt would ensure lhat the averments made in the FlR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients Lo constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FlR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessar5z ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owe s a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record o[ thc case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care ald circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exglcising ils jurisdiction 6 .]AK. J I tt I 1il0-i 2024 under- !l('ction 482 of t]ne CrPC or Articlc 2!16 o' th(l (lrr Llitilution need not restrict itselI onil' tc, thr: s t,r , - of a case but is empowered to take inlo ir('count the overall circumstances leadir-rg to thr' initiation/ registration of thc case as u ell as tlrc materia-ls collected in the. coursc ol- in,res:rpz tion. Take for instance thc cast: on heLncl i,,lrrJtiple FIRs have been registered ovcr a pel icid of time. It rs in the background oi such c:i :,rumstances the registration of multiplt' FIIRs il:isumes importance, thereby attra(rtinll th'3 rs,srlir of wreaking vengeance out of pr:vate or pr::-r;o,-ra1 grudge as alleged." 1zl . 'ifrtLs these were no[ cases of u'rcakrr g vengeiln(r' out of private or personal grudge, bLrt consi<ienn11 all the other attending circum-st:rur:r s where in tllree cases were registered one aficr rl i: other u,i .h in a time span of half an hour gap in betu,e,:n th( m at three different placcs wher,:in -l r: name:; ol 1he petilioners were cited as acclLscd itl all thr:r :rblve three cases and the most sevct'c ctls (l amonq llrr:ar tried as S.C.No.52 of 2O2O resullcd irr acquittal of all the accused persons including 1,: prescrlt yx:titioners herein due to lack 11- identi ica ti rn of specific persons who pelted stotrt s on the 1>olir:c personnel from out of the rnob ,r1' arour.: d . ()C persons and the result ol the presr:rrt calenr lar ,.rt ses is also likely to be on the same lirlt s resulting in u.aste of the precious time of the Cou -t and consiricring that the petitioners are mo\rll 3 arour:.d lhr: Court lor thc past more than 5i vc'r; s u'ithor-rt trial being commenced by ruinir-rg tl-Lt ir careels urd employment opportunitres. it s consicler<:,1 .it to quash the proceedings against lI c petitir:,ners in C.C.No.784 of 2018 (arising ottt. Crime' Nlo - 21 of 2077 of P.S. Nandipcr) and C.C.No.17.i of 2O21 (arising out Crime No.122 ,rf 2077 ''tf I).t:i Nandipet) on the_file of the Junior Cir il Court .um - Rddi[-i,onal Judicial First Clrrs s Magis tr:1t e Armoor." 7 JAK, J CRLP 15i05 2024

10. Having perused the entire lactual matrix of this case, this Court deems it appropriate that proceedings in CC.No.l75 of 2O2l on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor, against petitioners/ accused are 1iable to be quashed. and are hereby quashed. Needless to state, this Court is not inclined to differ from the opinion in the order, dated 28.11.2023, passed in Crl.P.Nos. 1 1165 and lL166 of 2023 and triai Court's order dated 31.1O.2O23, passed in SC.No.52 of

2020. The trial Court conducted an elaborate trial and held that all the accused are not guilty for the offences. It is also observed that Section 3O7 of IPC was filed in SC.No.S2 of 2O2O which is grave offence. In view of the same, continuance of proceedings against petitioners/ accused in CC.No. 175 of 202 1 would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings are quashed. 1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand clo sed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFF]CER

1. The Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrale, Armoor The station House Officer, Nandipet Police Station, Nizambad Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to SRI SHAFATH AHMED KHAN, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2 3 4 .H? 5 A HIGH COURT DATED:10104,t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.15105 of 2024 a tJ a) ==:=-:':- lHE S fA 14: 1 ilAI ? 2U5 z a) i o fls,o7r r illl ==.::i- ALLOWING THE CRLP tff(,<*