Telangana High Court

M.Suresh Merugu Srishailam vs The State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

          CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1344 of 2025
ORDER:

Heard Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for Sri B. Narsing, learned counsel for petitioners

and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned

Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

2. This petition is filed by petitioners/A.13 to A.15 under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to

quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1760 of 2023

on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, in respect of Crime No.95

of 2023 of Panjagutta Police Station, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 353 of Indian

Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 149 IPC, on the basis of

the complaint dated 03.02.2023 lodged by 2nd respondent.

3. In the aforesaid complaint lodged by 2nd respondent, the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Musheerabad Police Station, at the

relevant point of time, it is alleged that on 03.02.2023, at about 2 KL, J

12:30 hours, while he and other staff, L.Ws.2 and 3, were

performing Bandobust duty near BB IV Gate, Pragathi

Bhavan/CM Camp Office, Begumpet, Hyderabad, he saw that

around 15 members were unlawfully assembled near Tourism

Plaza, Begumpet. They were proceeding to Pragathi Bhavan

without any permission. Immediately, he along with

Bandobust staff stopped them and enquired the purpose of

their assembly. Then, they revealed that they came to Pragathi

Bhavan to protest against the alleged anomalies in the ongoing

Police Recruitment demanding "to allow SIs and PCs police

job aspirants to write main exams who were qualified in

1600/800 meters running" and other demands on the call given

by A.1. He and other staff requested the aforesaid people not

to conduct protest. They did not heed to their request and

started argued with them. They have tried to go into Pragathi

Bhavan without permission. They have also sat on the road by

raising slogans against the Government causing obstruction to

the free flow of traffic and causing inconvenience to the

public. Therefore, L.W.1 and others have taken them into their

custody and shifted them to S.R. Nagar Police Station. On 3 KL, J

enquiry, they came to know about the names of the petitioners.

The statements of L.Ws.2 and 3 are in the same lines. Basing

on the said statements of L.Ws.1 to 3, the Investigating Officer

has filed charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the

aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide

C.C.No.1760 of 2023. Challenging the said proceedings,

petitioners filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the

aforesaid offences. There is no criminal intent. There is no

unlawful assembly. They went to the said Tourism Plaza,

Begumpet, only to protest against the Government in silent

manner. With regard to the police recruitment, the

Government has changed the Rules after issuance of

notification. Without considering the said aspects, the

Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the

petitioners and others and the learned Magistrate has taken

cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners

and others. Petitioners are students and they are appearing for 4 KL, J

competitive examinations. The police implicated them with a

false motive. The Investigating 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 others 1 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 Public Prosecutor would contend that there are

specific allegations against the petitioners. L.Ws.1 to 3 are

Sub-Inspector of Police and Police Constables. The petitioners

along with others have raised slogans against the Government

and conducted dharna in front of Pragathi Bhavan which

caused obstruction for free flow of traffic and caused

inconvenience to the public. All the contentions raised by the

petitioners are defences which cannot be considered in a

petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have

(2016) 15 SCC 525

2024(3) ALD (Crl.) 641 (AP)

Crl.P.No.3865 of 2024 dated 07.06.2024 5 KL, J

to face trial and prove their innocence. With the said

submissions, she sought to dismiss the present Criminal

Petition.

6. As discussed supra, the offences against the petitioners

are punishable under Sections 143, 341, 353 IPC read with

Section 149 IPC.

7. Section 141 IPC deals with unlawful assembly. It is

relevant to extract Section 141 IPC hereunder:

"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, 1the 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 6 KL, J

or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (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.

Explanation.-- An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."

Thus, there should be criminal force with an intention to

obtain possession of property or to deprive any person of

enjoyment of a right of way etc. In the present case, none of

the witnesses, L.Ws.1 to 3, stated with regard to the same.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of

L.Ws.1 to 3 lack the ingredients of Section 141 IPC.

8. Section 339 IPC deals with wrongful restraint. The same

is extracted below:

"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.

(Exception)-- The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes 7 KL, J

himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section."

Thus, 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. In the present case,

L.Ws.1 to 3 except saying that the petitioners conducted

protest and raised slogans against the Government causing

obstruction to the free flow of traffic, they have not stated

about the wrongful restraint by the petitioners. However, the

Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of any

independent witness. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3 lack the ingredients of Section

339 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. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter 8 KL, J

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 description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

Therefore, to attract the said offence, there should be assault

and use of criminal force to any person being a public servant

in execution of his duty as such public servant with an

intention to prevent or deter that person from discharging his

duty as public servant. In the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3, 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 3 lack the ingredients of

Section 353 IPC.

10. 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.

9 KL, J

"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.--

If 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."

11. It is relevant to note that Section 149 IPC does not create

separate offence but only it declares vicarious liability of all

members of unlawful assembly for committing of offence with

common object as held by the Apex Court in Vinubhai

Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Dudabhai Patel 4.

12. It is also relevant to note that to attract Section 149 IPC,

it must be shown the criminal act to accomplish the common

object of unlawful assembly. It must be within the knowledge

of other members likely to be committed in prosecution of

common object. When the members of assembly were aware

or likely to aware of the offence being committed in

AIR 2018 SC 2472 10 KL, J

prosecution of common object, they would be liable in terms

of Section 149 IPC. The said principle was also held by the

Apex Court in Waman v. State of Maharashtra5.

13. It is also apt to note that common object is the main

ingredient to attract the offence under Section 149 IPC. In the

present case, none of the witnesses, L.Ws.1 to 3, stated about

the common object. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3 lack the ingredients of Section

149 IPC.

14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal6, the Apex Court

cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very

sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare

cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is

sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the

reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made

in the complaint or in FIR. In the said judgment, the Apex

Court laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same read as under:

(2011) 7 SCC 295

(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 11 KL, J

"(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 report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying 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 not disclose the commission of any offence 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 investigation 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 conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

12 KL, J

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena

of decisions. In the light of the above, continuation of the

proceedings in C.C.No.1760 of 2023 against the petitioners is

an abuse of process of law.

15. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.1760 of 2023 on the

file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in

respect of petitioners/A.13 to A.15 only. However, it is made

clear that the proceedings in the above said C.C. may go on in

respect of other accused.

16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand