✦ High Court of India · 12 Dec 2025

The High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 12 Dec 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
12 Dec 2025
Length
1,337 words

PetitionunderSection52SofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may catt for the records about the Charge sheet vide CC 1109112023 b;;;;.Jl" on [n" tif u of Vllt Additional Chief Metropolitan Migistrate at Hyderabad quash the sa"me. t.A. NO: 20 F 2025 -oi.".eo Petitionundersection52SofBNSSprayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theHighcourtmay to stav all further proceedings in the Charge sheet vide cC [. lioitlioii on ind tr" of Vlll Additionai chief Metropolitan !"Ti?-11"t:-?t Hvderabadfortheoffencesu/s.341,290,171-H,151,R/w'34lPC'21176CPA' of the Petitioner/Accused No 3, before the said Court' i"Lrrirs th" "pf""rin"" This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsof SriAbdullah,representingsriAashirMehtabKhan,AdvocateforthePetitioner and sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No 2' The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMIN PETITION No.16553 of 2025 Date: 12.12.2025 Between Mohamme,J Rashed Ahmed Khan AND ...Petitioner The State c,f Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Cour. of Telangana Hyderabad, Telangana and another respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner/irccused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.l1091 of 2023 on the file of the leamed VIII Additional Chief Met;:opolitan Magistrate at Hyclerabad.

2. Heard Sri Abdullah, learned counsel, representing Sri Aashir M.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri v.Jithendar Rao, leamed Additional Public prosecutor for respondent No.l. I i I I I I I i ! : I : : 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that the issue raised in this criminal petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.I5642 of 2024, dated

12.03.2025, wherein accused Nos.2 and 4 approached this Court seeking quashing of the very same proceedings, and this Court allowed the same. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to the very same relief.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not opposed the submission made by the leamed counsel for petitioner that the issue raised in the present Criminal Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.15642 of 2024 dated 1,2.03.2025.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective parties and the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.15642 of 2024, dated 12.03.2025, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.11091 of 2023 on the file of the leamed VIII Additional Cnief lrrrl-tl6politan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. 3 Penrling miscellaneous applications, if &try, shall stand closed SD/- T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Dabeerpura Police Station, Hyderabad 3. Two CC)s to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyder:rbad [OUT]

4. One CC to SriRainir Mehtab Khan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two Ct) CoPies ABK/PSL Fr ,l I I HIGH COURT DATED: 12111t12025 ORDER CRLP.No.16$53 ot 2025 \\ES i\ /, //, 3 ?t Jrll 2026 t I v 7 'i. ..\ * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION B6<artr \{i-l---' ..,-*..'htu* THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No' 15642 OF 2024 ORAL ORDER: This criminar petition is fired praying this court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos'2 and 4 inCC.No.11091of2o23onthe{ileoftheVlllAdditionatChief Metropolitan Magistrate' at Hyderabad' registered for the offences l, 2gO, 171(H), 151 r/w 34 of IPC' punishable under Sections 34 - and Section 2L 176 of HCP Act' 2- The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on November6,2023,at|2:45hours,abikerallywasorganizedby MohammedAbdulsalamshahidinHyderabad,commencingfrom Jalaal Sweet House, Old Malakpet, and proceeding through various locations, including Chanchalguda Junior College' Fathekhan Bazar, Dabeerpura Bridge, City Function ffi , i. ctranil...l*Ot: ""d : obtainin[ lPermislion .from , Returning Offucer, S8-Matakpet constituency, for a rally of 400 members, the event exceeded the permitted capacity with over 8OO participants, resulting in the obstruction of free traffrc flow for approximately 30 minutes. Furthermore, in contravention of L 2 SKS,.I crr.P.No- rs642 oF 2024 \b prohibitory ord'ers, crackers were fired at City Function Ha[l' Chzrnchalguda,withvisr'ialevidencecapturedoncamera'Thesaid rallyarrditsrelateciincidcntsctlnstituteviolationsoftheModei Cod.eofConduct(MCC)zrndthein.structionsstipuiatedbythe Returning Officer, pronrptecl G' Shankar' Dy' E'E'' to submit a complaint on November 6' 2023' at i6:20 hours' seeking requisite action. The petitioners being aggrievecl by their implication in the said case, hled this crirninal petition' 3 Heard Sri Aashir N{'Khan' learnecl counsel for petitioners' and Sri Arun I(umar' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No' 1 - State' 4 Learned counsel ior Petitioners submitted that there are no specific set of allegations against the petitioners and tkrat particr-rlarly the offence punishable under Sectious 341 and 17r (h) oi rra are not at aLi attracted to the petitioners' He was -Iimited to the extent .i;.i.,..,: : ' l';i:.1,.. .; that ;rallegation land excePt the petitioner . He assbrted that taken bY A1 and that Petitioners were no way connected to the rallyand'thattheyhavenotevenparticipatedintherally.Assrrch, while advocating that the petitioners are no way connected with : I I :: Ili'. ':. ..._J' ! | l,r- ;.ti";:;\.:i'i . I ; Y:'1:li:+\:il,'rn.. i' I 1,,:,.'ri+;.,t.:tiirrr .- . . ' .r._i'., .:::- :l,l ii:i ,. ] iIt I I l i i; Iti !i , ., ...;;r.+.- ,. .

3.Ll SKS, J Crl.P-No- 15642 OF 2024 the offence as alleged, he prayed this court to allow the criminal petition, quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC.No.1 l091 of 2023.

5. on the other h1nd, the learned Additional public prosecutor for respondent, opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and submitted that the offence punishable under sections 290 and 171(h) of Ipc are non-cognizable offences and that section 341 of IPC is cognizable offence. He averred. that with respect to offence punish:rble under Section i7l(h) of lpc, the concerned officer has to file complaint before the concerned court, and not before the police. Therefore, he prayed . this court to dismiss the criminal petition. ; Having regard to the-rivar submissions made and on going through the materiar praced on record, it is noted that the averments made in the compraint, as well as, in the charge sheet, would show that A2 to 49, i.e., including pititioners/A2 3pd 44, busted firecrackers which is prohibited and in vioratio.r:lij,t. Model code of conduct- However, it is seen that even as per chargesheet averments, there are no allegations against the petitioners to constitute the offences punishable under sections 771(h),341 and 29o of lpc- The act of bursting crackers not at all . :. : lii"i,:, !. 4 )/o SKS, .,J Crl.P.No. i5642 O!' 2C,l/+ attracts any of the offences as alleged against the petitiohers. Furtfrer, there are no allegations against the petitioners to shorv that they excecCed thc permission grttnted by the authority which was obtained by Al.

7. In the light of the above, this criminal Petition is allowed anci the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC.No.1 1O9l oi 2023 on the file of the VIII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed- MisceLlaneous applications, if any'pending, shall also stand closed Date: L2.O3.2025 PT '':' ' :i! - ''I : ,t IJ-' r' 1 K. SUJANA, J :i '). ]r. ir. ii tl ,.

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments