Telangana High Court

T.Raja Singh vs The State Of Telangana on 21 April, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
             CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 OF 2025
ORDER:

Heard Mr. Gummala Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri

Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent No.1.

2. The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners to

quash the proceedings in C.C. No.473 of 2023 pending on the file of

the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally,

Hyderabad.

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 21

in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against them are under

Sections -143, 147, 341, 447, 152, 188, 269 read with 149 of IPC,

Section 51 (1) (b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 ( for short, 'DM

Act'), and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The aforesaid

Sections are akin to the Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

(BNS) which are as follows:-

                     IPC                     BNS

                     143                    189(2)

                     147                    191(2)

                                                                           KL,J







                     341                    126(2)

                     447                    329 (3)

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2021 on credible

information that the BJP Members staging a dharna at GHMC Head

Office with a demand to remove the illegal constructions on NALAs

and for the cleaning NALAs in GHMC Limits, 2nd respondent, Sub

Inspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad along with

other police personnel were on bandobasthu duties. At about 12.05

hrs, all of a sudden, around 150 BJP Members including the

petitioners herein/ A.1 to A.21 obstructed the public on road in front

of GHMC Head Office, without any permission and without following

COVID guidelines. Out of them, A.1 is T. Raja Singh, MLA, A.2 is

Chinthala Ramchandra Reddy, Ex-MLA and A.3 is NVSS Prabhakar,

Ex-MLA and others are also holding different cadres in the BJP party.

Despite their request to stop dharna, accused persons did not heed

their words and they used force on the police. Then, 2nd respondent

lodged a complaint with the Police, Saifabad Police Station, who in

turn, registered a case in Cr.No.289 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences

KL,J

and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid

charge sheet before I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at

Nampally, Hyderabad, who numbered the same as C.C.No.473 of

2023.

5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS:

i. The petitioners were falsely implicated in the present case basing on false allegations.

ii. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet in routine

manner but he has not conducted investigation properly.

iii. The contents of the complaint and statements of the witnesses

lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the

petitioners.

iv. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences alleged without

applying judicial mind.

v. Continuation of proceedings in the present CC is nothing but

abuse of process.

vi. There is no prima facie evidence on record to support the case

of prosecution.

With the said submissions, they sought to quash the proceedings in the

present CC.

KL,J

6. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

i) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there

are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. The contentions

raised by the petitioners are triable issues to be considered by the trial

Court only after full-fledged trial, but not at this stage. The petitioners

have to face trial and prove their innocence. The Investigating Officer

has recorded the statements of 5 witnesses and on consideration of the

same only, he has laid charge sheet against the petitioners. The

defence taken by the petitioners may not be considered in the present

petition filed under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.

ii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel

representing learned Public Prosecutor, sought to dismiss the present

petition.

7. FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) As stated supra, in the complaint dated 18.06.2021, 2nd

respondent Sub Inspector of Police, stated that on 18.06.2021 on

credible information that the BJP Members staging a dharna at GHMC

Head Office with a demand to remove the illegal constructions on

KL,J

NALAs and for the cleaning NALAs in GHMC Limits, he along with

other police personnel were on bandobasthu duties. At about 12.05

hrs, all of a sudden, around 150 BJP Members including the

petitioners herein/ A.1 to A.21 obstructed the public on road in front

of GHMC Head Office, without any permission and without following

COVID guidelines. Despite their request to stop dharna,

petitioners/accused did not heed their words and they used force on

the police.

ii) On receipt of the said complaint, dated 18.06.2021, police

Saifabad, have registered a case in Cr.No.289 of 2021 against the

petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

iii) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

has recorded the statement of 2nd respondent - Sub Inspector of Police

as L.W.1, Police Constables of P.S. Saifabad, as L.Ws.2 and 3,

Woman Constable of the said Police Station as L.W.4. It is relevant to

note that in the charge sheet it has been specifically mentioned that

despite the efforts made to secure eye witnesses, no one came forward

to speak about the incident. LW.7 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who

issued the FIR, LW.8 is the first Investigating Officer, L.W.9 is

second Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet. Thus, it is clear

KL,J

that there is no independent witness examined by the police to speak

about the acts committed by the accused attracting the aforesaid

offences.

iii) In view of the above rival submissions, it is apposite to

extract the relevant provisions of IPC, ED Act and DM Act, which are

as under:

INDIAN PENAL CODE "188. Disobedience 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 from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which 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 rupees, or with both.

Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order

KL,J

which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."

269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.--Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."

141. Unlawful assembly--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is--

First.--To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second.--To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.--To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.--By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

KL,J

Fifth.--By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

143. Punishment.--

Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

146. Rioting.--Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

147. Punishment for rioting.--

Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

152. Assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot, etc.--Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

339. Wrongful restraint.--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.

KL,J

341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

441. Criminal trespass.--Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass"

447. Punishment for criminal trespass.--

Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

152. Assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing riot, etc.--

Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

KL,J

EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT

3. Penalty.--(1) Any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

(2) Whoever,--

(i) commits or abets the commission of an act of violence against a healthcare service personnel; or

(ii) abets or cause damage or loss to any property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months, but which may extend to five years, and with fine, which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees.

(3) Whoever, while committing an act of violence against a healthcare service personnel, causes grievous hurt as defined in section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) to such person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to seven years and with fine, which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to five lakh rupees."

KL,J

DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT

"51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.--

Whoever, without reasonable cause--

(a) obstructs any officer or employee of the Central Government or the State Government, or a person authorised by the National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge of his functions under this Act; or

(b) refuses to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."

iv) In view of the above, the legislative intent behind Section -

195 Cr.P.C. is that an individual should not face criminal prosecution

KL,J

instituted upon insufficient grounds by person actuated by malice or

frivolity of deposition and to save the time of the court being wasted

by endless prosecution. In the absence of complaint by the public

servant concerned under Section - 195 Cr.P.C., the offence

under Section - 188 of IPC against accused cannot be sustained.

v) In order to convict any person for commission of offence

punishable under Section - 188 IPC, the Court has to satisfy itself that

the accused had not only violated the order promulgated by a public

servant but also the accused had actual knowledge of issuance of such

order. In the case on hand, there is no whisper in the charge sheet that

the accused had knowledge of the order.

vi) In Bhoop Singh Tyagi v. State1, the Delhi High Court held

that a person booked under Section - 188 of IPC must have actual

knowledge of public servant's order requiring him to do or abstain

from doing some act. It was further held that acquiring or gaining of

such knowledge is a pre-requisite and any proof of general notification

promulgated by a public servant would not satisfy the requirement.

. 2002 Cri.L.J. 2872

KL,J

vii) In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public

Prosecutor2 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and

283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge held as under:

"5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting 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. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned 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 of Criminal Procedure.

In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge

. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009

KL,J

sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the 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 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 traffic 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 public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence 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 of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail.


                                                                                  KL,J



                7)        As the complaint has failed due to its

unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition."

viii) In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra

Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari

District3 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao2

and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State

of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4, more particularly, guideline No.6, which

says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the

provisions of the Code or the concerned 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 concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the

grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It further held that the proceedings shall

not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission

. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

KL,J

under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the

complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195

(1) (a) of Cr.P.C.

ix) In the case on hand, the police did not mention in the charge

sheet that the petitioners herein had knowledge of the order

promulgated by the public servant. Further, as already discussed

above, the Investigating Officer has not even examined any

independent witness to show that the petitioners did not wear any

mask and that they did not maintain physical distance of three feet

etc., and that on account of their acts, the innocent people gathered at

one place causing chance of spreading Corona Virus to the society.

x) It is relevant to note that G.O.Ms. No.13 would reveal that it

was issued by the Government of Telangana in exercise of the powers

conferred under Section - 2 of the E.D. Act, framing certain

regulations called as 'The Telangana Epidemic Diseases (COVID-19)

Regulations, 2020'. Clauses - 16 and 17 of the regulation in the said

G.O. are relevant, which are as under:

"16. Any person, institution, organization violating any provision of these Regulations shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable

KL,J

under section 188 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). The empowered officers may penalize any person, institution, organization found violating provisions of these Regulations or any further orders issued by Government under these Regulations.

17. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under these Regulations."

xi) In continuation of the said G.O.Ms.No.13, the State

Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 23.03.2020,

framing some more regulations to ensure social distancing to restrict

the spread of COVID-19, to be followed by all Shops, establishments

etc. In the said G.O., it is also mentioned that violation of the social

distancing norms shall be punishable under Sections - 188, 269 and

270 of IPC.

xii) A perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 30.05.2021 would

reveal that it was issued in exercise of powers conferred under the

Disaster Management Act,2005, on account of pandemic situation, the

Government has extended the lockdown with certain modifications

across the State of Telangana from 31.05.2021 to 09.06.2021 by

issuing directives to the concerned to implement the instructions

KL,J

therein strictly. Even in the said G.O., instruction Nos.11 and 12

under the caption "General Instructions" is relevant to extract, which

are as under:

"11. Any violation of the aforesaid instructions shall result in prosecution under Sections 51 to 60 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 of IPC as well as other applicable laws.

12. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under these regulations."

xiii) In view of the above, the contention of the petitioners that

they have staged dharna for the cause of public only and, thus, their

act would not amount to have committed any offence under Sections -

188, 269 of IPC and so also under Section - 3 of E.D. Act and Section

- 51 of D.M. Act, is sustainable.

xiv) Moreover, Section - 3 of the E.D. Act envisages that any

person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall

be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section

188 of IPC. This Court has already held that the petitioners have not

committed any offence, much less the offences under Section - 188 of

IPC.

KL,J

xv) Section - 51 (b) of the D.M. Act prescribes punishment for

obstruction, etc, whoever, without reasonable cause refuses to comply

with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or

the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the

State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act,

shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such

obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives

or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.

xvi) In the present case, there is no allegation whatsoever

against the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the allegation in

respect of the offence punishable under Section - 51 (b) of the D.M.

Act cannot be sustained against the accused.

xvii) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as

per Section 60 of the DM Act, 2005, the Police cannot register a case

on the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent has to file a

complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate.

Without considering the same, on the complaint of 2nd respondent,

Police Saifabad, have registered the aforesaid crime and learned

KL,J

Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 51(b)

of DM Act.

xviii) In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to extract

Section 60 of the DM Act:-

60. Cognizance of offences -No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by-

(a)the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Government, as the case may be; or

(b)any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.

8. With regard to the other offences alleged against the

petitioners herein, as stated above, Section 143 of IPC deals with

punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly, Section 147

deals with punishment for rioting, Section 341 of IPC deals with

punishment for wrongful restraint, Section 447 of IPC deals with

punishment for criminal trespass and Section 152 of IPC deals with

assaulting or obstructing public servant in discharge of his duty as

such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful

KL,J

assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or

attempts to use criminal force to such public servant.

9. To attract punishment for the offence of unlawful assembly,

there should be common object of the persons composing assembly

for the aforesaid purposes. In the complaint dated 18.06.2021,

statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 lacks the aforesaid ingredients. Therefore,

proceedings in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners for the offence

under Section 143 of IPC cannot go on.

10. As per Section 146 of IPC, there should be use of force or

violence by an unlawful assembly or by a member thereof in

prosecution of common object of such assembly.

11. In the present case, the same are lacking. None of the

witnesses spoke about the same against the petitioners herein.

Therefore, the offence under Section 147 of IPC cannot go on.

12. It is also apt to note that Section 338 of IPC deals with

wrongful restraint and to attract the offence under Section 339 of IPC,

there should be voluntary obstruction of any person so as to prevent

that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has

a right to proceed.

KL,J

13. In the present case, none of the witnesses spoke about the

said obstruction much less voluntary obstruction to prevent that

person from proceeding in any direction. Therefore, the proceedings

in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners herein cannot go on.

14. Section 441 of IPC deals with criminal trespass. To attract

the said offence, one who enters into or upon property in possession of

another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or

annoy any person in possession of such property.

15. In the present case, the place of offence is GHMC office. 1st

petitioner is sitting MLA. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Former MLAs,

and some of the accused are Corporators of GHMC. Therefore, it

cannot be termed that they have trespassed into the GHMC office and

it amounts criminal trespass. Therefore, the contents of the complaint

and statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the said offence.

Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners

herein cannot go on for the said offence.

16. Section 152 deals with assaulting or obstructing public

servant when suppressing riot, etc. Whoever assaults or threatens to

assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the

discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to

KL,J

disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses,

or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant,

he is liable for punishment prescribed thereunder. To attract the said

offence, the contents of the complaint and statements of L.Ws.1 to 4

lack the ingredients of the said offence. There is no assault or

obstruction of any public servant. Therefore, the proceedings in the

aforesaid CC against the petitioners herein cannot go on for the said

offence.

17. As stated above, in the charge sheet, the Investigating

Officer mentioned that in spite of his efforts to secure eye witnesses,

no one came forward to speak about the incident to prove that the

petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them. The

L.Ws.1 to 4, 7 to 9 are the complainant, Police Constables and

Investigating Officers and L.Ws.5 and 6 are panch witnesses.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the

petitioners herein.

18. The facts of the present case fall within the parameters laid

down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal4. Therefore, viewed from any

angle, continuation of proceedings in C.C. No.473 of 2023 is not

warranted and the same are liable to be quashed.

KL,J

CONCLUSION:

Applying the principle laid down in the above said judgments

and in view of the above said discussion, the present Criminal Petition

is accordingly allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.473 of 2023

pending on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at

Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners alone are hereby

quashed against the petitioners herein.