Telangana High Court
Sri Matam Srikar vs The State Of Telangana on 30 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7734 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS
seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.4195 of 2025, on the file of XVI
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 126(2) and 292 r/w. 190
BNS.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR has been registered vide
FIR.No.75 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025. Based upon the complaint
filed by the de facto complainant/respondent No.2, one
Mr.R.Sumanth, Police Constable, the case has been registered
against the petitioner herein for the offences stated supra. In the
said complaint, it is alleged that the while the 2nd respondent is
performing his patrolling duty in Section-I area near Renuka
Yellamma Temple, R.K.Pet, Hyderabad, he noticed traffic congestion
problem between R.K.Pet X Road to Shankar Cafe. On enquiry, he
came to know that one religious procession is passing from Mallappa
Mutt via R.K.Pet, under the supervision of one Santhosh, Srikar,
Srinivas Chari, Rakesh Goud and others without valid permission
from Police with a gathering of 40 members. Upon noticing that
though he asked them to give a way to public for free flow of traffic,
they denied the same. Hence, the present complaint is filed
requesting to take appropriate action in accordance with law for
causing nuisance and obstructing the free flow of traffic by taking
procession without valid permission.
4. On receipt of the said complaint, L.W.5 registered a complaint
and entrusted the same to L.W.6 for further investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while admitting that temple
was undertaking procession would submit that the said "Sri
Mallikarjuna (Mahadev) Temple" is non-profitable temple and the
same is run by Matthadipathi from generations and the accused
herein is the successor of 7th generation. Under the guidance of the
petitioner herein the rituals were performed in the temple. He
further submits that like every year, the petitioner herein informed
Mangalhat Police Station about Mahasivarathri festival rituals and
sought for security. On 27.02.2025, the Mangalhat Police provided
security and guarded the entire ritual of procession till completion.
He would further submit that except the Police officials no other
independent witness have been examined by the respondent-Police.
The witness to the scene of offence ie., Rakesh Goud who is a
habitual offender and is under the control and command of the
Police has been examined, whose evidence cannot be taken into
consideration. The evidence of Police officials cannot be taken into
consideration. In the instance case, the petitioner made an
application dated 21.02.2025 seeking permission for undertaking
procession and paid Rs.145/-. Accordingly, the permission was
granted for 7 working days. In these circumstances, at any stretch
of imagination, it cannot be said that procession was not within
knowledge of the respondent-Police. Therefore, continuation of
criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amounts to abuse
of process of law. Hence, he seeks to quash the proceedings against
the petitioner.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there
was unlawful assembly and the Police officials after conducting
thorough investigation laid charge sheet against the petitioner for
creating nuisance and obstructing free flow of traffic. He further
submits that until and unless thorough trial is conducted, truth
cannot be elicited. Hence, seeks to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and upon perusal of the
contents made in the complaint, this Court is seized of the fact that
procession of the Deity of the said temple has been taking place from
the times unknown. The said fact is nowhere denied. However,
while undertaking procession, whether there is violation of law or not
can be elicited after careful examination. No independent witnesses
have been examined. Having obtained the prior permission on
22.06.2025 by paying requisite fee, which was granted for 15
working days, it cannot be said that permission is absent, which is
fatal to the prosecution case.
8. In view of the above said circumstances and relying upon the
guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
reported in State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Others 1, this Court
deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner
herein.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No.4194 of 2025, on the
file of XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any
pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 30.06.2025
dv
1992 AIR 604
