Telangana High Court
Sri. K. Mahesh vs The State Of Telangana on 5 March, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3214 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.9 to
quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.13424 of 2020
pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 353,
332, 341, 152, 143 and 147 r/w. 149 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.03.2020, the
complainant, along with other police personnel, was performing
bandobust duties at Osmania Gate during the Assembly Sessions.
At around 11:10 hrs, 20-30 ABVP activists holding flags obstructed
traffic on the main road. Despite police requests to clear the road,
the activists sat on the road and raised slogans. They then
attempted to trespass onto Assembly premises by climbing the
Osmania Gate and wall. When police tried to stop them, the activists
resisted and used force, injuring the complainant and HG 6017
Jagadishwar. The complainant declared the assembly unlawful and
JS, J
ordered them to disperse, but the activists continued to use force
and assaulted police officers. In response, a lathi charge was
ordered, resulting in injuries to some activists and the apprehension
of a few.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations
levelled against the petitioner are false. To attract Section 143 of
IPC, the common object of the person would need to fall within one
of the five categories which have been laid down under Section 141
of IPC. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no mention of the
common object and there is no indication as to how the alleged
offence of unlawful assembly is attracted. In this regard, he relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anita Thakur v.
Government of Jammu and Kashmir 1. He further submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, in order to
suppress the precious fundamental right enshrined in Article 19 (1)
of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel further submits that there is no allegation in
the charge sheet that any vehicles or persons are obstructed by the
petitioner, to attract the offence under Section 341 of IPC. The
protest at Osmania Gate itself shows that they are not obstructing
the way. There is no public nuisance caused by them, hence,
(2016) 15 SCC 525
JS, J
Section 290 of IPC does not attract and there is no allegation in the
charge sheet to constitute the offence under Section 186 of IPC,
where they have not obstructed any public servant from discharging
the duties. He further submits that petitioner is a practicing Advocate.
Except making false and frivolous allegations, there are no specific
allegations attributed to him and he never participated in any incident
as alleged and there is no complaint given by any civilian, as such,
causing public nuisance and obstructing the traffic is not at all
obstructed. He further submits that all the witnesses in this case are
Police constables and no public were examined to prove the
innocence and all the statements are cyclostyled statements. He
further submits that in similar circumstances, this Court, in
Crl.P.No.3865 of 2024 has quashed the proceedings against the
petitioners therein. Since the petitioner herein also stands on the
same footing, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against
him.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that the petitioner was part of the unlawful assembly and tried
to trespass into the premises of Telangana State Legislative
Assembly and thereby, he committed the alleged offences and there
are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner and only after
JS, J
full-fledged trial, the truth or otherwise would come out and prayed to
dismiss this petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material placed
on record, the allegations against the petitioner are that he along
with other accused formed into unlawful assembly and raised
slogans and tried to trespass into the premises of the Telangana
State Legislative Assembly. The contention of petitioner is that he
never participated in the protest and also relied upon the Judgment
of Anita Thakur's case (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that Article 19 (1) (a) confers freedom of speech to
the citizens of this Country, and thus, this provision ensures that the
petitioner could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly
manner, without using offensive language. In the present case, there
are no specific allegations that this petitioner used offensive
language and there is no evidence to show that due to unlawful
assembly, nuisance is caused to the public and that he has
obstructed free flow of traffic or obstructed the public or the
authorities from discharging their duties. Hence, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of
law and the same are liable to be quashed.
JS, J
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.9 in C.C.No.13424 of
2020 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 05.03.2025
lk
