Telangana High Court

Muta Gopal vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

          CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7200 of 2024
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2

and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

2. This application is filed by petitioners/A.1 & A.2 under

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

quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.218 of 2024 on

the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class

for Excise Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad, in respect of Crime

No.453 of 2023 of Musheerabad Police Station, registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 290 of Indian

Penal Code (IPC) and Section 21/76 of the Hyderabad City

Police Act, 1348 Fasli (CP Act), on the basis of the complaint

dated 27.11.2023 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 27.11.2023, at about

21:45 hours, he was performing area patrolling duties along 2 KL, J

with his staff, PC 3418, V. Balram (LW.2), HG 8735 Ahmed

Moinuddin (L.W.3) and monitoring the election road-show. It

is further alleged that under the leadership of 1st petitioner/A.1,

contesting candidate of Musheerabad Assembly Constituency,

a party meeting was arranged and 1st petitioner/A.1 applied for

permission for conducting campaign from 15:00 hours to

22:00 hours. The same was permitted by the Returning Officer

as per the guidelines of Election Commission of India.

It is further alleged that 2nd petitioner/A.2 also

participated in the said programme to address the crowd for

campaigning on behalf of 1st petitioner/A.1, in the road show

at Anjuman School. They have continued the road show and

concluded it at 22:07 hours, which is beyond the permitted

time by ECI for campaigning for the ongoing Telangana State

Assembly elections. In the said road show, they have also

burst the crackers and caused nuisance to the common public

by violating the Model Code of Conduct and the same was

video-graphed. Hence, 2nd respondent requested the Station

House Officer to take action against petitioners.

3 KL, J

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as L.W.1,

eyewitnesses as L.Ws.2 and 3, panch witnesses as L.Ws.4

and 5.

5. In his statement, 2nd respondent has reiterated the

contents of the aforesaid complaint dated 27.11.2023. L.Ws.2

and 3 have also stated in the same lines. Thus, the sum and

substance of the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3 is that

1st petitioner/A.1 had obtained permission for conducting

campaign from 15:00 to 22:00 hours and 2nd petitioner/A.2

participated in the said campaign. They have conducted road

show beyond the permitted hours i.e., 7 minutes, and caused

public nuisance and wrongfully restrained the general public

on road.

6. In the light of the said discussion, it is relevant to note

that Section 268 of IPC deals with 'public nuisance'. It reads

as under:

268. Public nuisance.--A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or 4 KL, J

annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

7. Section 290 IPC deals with punishment for public

nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for. It reads as under:

"290. Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for.--Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees."

8. Section 339 IPC deals with the definition of wrongful

restraint. It reads as under:

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

9. Sections 21 and 76 of CP Act read as under:

5 KL, J

Section 21 of CP Act:

"21. (1) The [Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad] may, from time to time, make rules not inconsistent with this Act in respect of the following. Such rules shall, in case of clauses (b) and (c), be subject to the control of the Government and with regard to the remaining clauses, sanction of the Government shall be obtained prior to the enforcement of rules.

(a) granting licences to persons willing to accept employment at places where goods is unloaded, and for the carriage of passengers' baggage outside the limits of Railway stations and fixing a scale of charges and remuneration for labour of persons so employed;

(b) regulating traffic of all kinds in public streets or public places, and regulating the use of streets and public places by persons walking, driving, cycling or accompanying or leading cattle, with a view to prevent danger, inconvenience or obstruction to the public;

(c) regulating the conditions under which vehicles may be parked in public streets and public places, and the use of public streets as temporary halting places for cattle and vehicles;

(d) prescribing the number and position of lights to be used on vehicles passing through public streets or public places, and regulating the manner of conveying timber, poles, bamboo, ladders, bars, iron beams boilers and other unvieldy articles and the route and hours for conveying such articles;

6 KL, J

(e) prescribing, subject to any notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner in this behalf, the roads along which and the hours during which corpses may or may not be carried;

(f) licensing for or regulating the following matters and where it is likely to cause inconvenience, delay, danger or damage to the residents or the persons passing in the vicinity, prohibiting,-

(i) the keeping of a place of public amusement or place of public entertainment,

(ii) the playing of music in public streets or public places,

[(iia) the using of a loud-speaker in any public place or places of public entertainment,]

(iii) the illumination in public street, or public place, or on any building adjacent to the public street, by persons other than Government or Municipal officers authorised in this behalf,

(iv) the carrying through public streets or places of gunpowder or other explosive substances,

(v) blasting;

(g) regulating the entrance or exit at any place of public amusement or place of public entertainment or at any meeting or public assembly and providing for the maintenance of public peace and the prevention of disturbance at such places;

7 KL, J

[(gg) regulating or prohibiting the sale of any ticket or pass for admission, by whatever name called, to a place of public amusement;]

(h) where licence or certificate is required to be obtained under this Act, prescribing the procedure for obtaining it and fixing the fees for any such licence and certificate:

[Provided firstly that no person, by virtue of anything contained in this section and licence granted under the rules issued under this section shall be authorised to import, export, transport, manufacture, sell or possess any liquor or intoxicating drugs in respect of which a licence or permit is required under

8 [the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abkari Act, 1316 F.] or under any other law for the time being in force and that the liability which may be incurred by any such person under such law or any law for the time being in force relating to fireworks, explosives and arms shall not be affected in any way by anything contained in this section:

Provided secondly that a rule made under clause (g) shall not contain any condition requiring a licence for a place of public amusement, unless liquor, sendhi or any intoxicating drug as defined in the law for the time being in force is sold in such places or unless such place is kept open for customers between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.]

(2) The power to make rules under sub-section (1) shall be subject to the condition of the rules being enforced after publication and they shall be published 8 KL, J

in the [Official Gazette] in the manner specified in section 84.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in this section or in any rules made thereunder, it shall always be lawful for *[Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad] to refuse a licence for or to prohibit the establishment of a place of public amusement or a place of public entertainment by a notorious scoundral or a bad character."

Section 76 of CP Act:

"76. Whoever,-

(a) contravenes any rule made under section 21 of this Act or any other order or prohibition lawfully given under sub-section (3) of section 21 or section 22, or

(b) refuses or fails to conform to any lawful and reasonable direction of any Police officer given in accordance with this Act, or with any rule made thereunder, or

(c) opposes or disobeys or fails to conform to any direction of the * [Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad] notified under section 26 of this Act, or abets opposition or refusal to conform to such direction, shall,-

(firstly) - for any contravention of a rule made under section 21 of this Act, if the said rule is made under subsection (a), (b) or (c) or under clauses (first) and (second) of sub-section (f), be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees; and if the rule 9 KL, J

contravened is made under subsection (d) or (e) or under clause (third) or (fourth) or (fifth) of sub-section

(f), be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to (8) days or with fine which may extend to fifty rupees or with both.

(secondly) - if the offence constitutes a contravention of any prohibitory order made under sub-section (2) or subsection (3) of section 22 or clause (c) of this section, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both, and

(thirdly) - in other cases, be punished with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees."

10. In Bhajan Lal (supra), 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, 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:

10 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. (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 11 KL, J

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.

11. As discussed supra, none of the witnesses including

L.Ws.1 to 3 spoke about the aforesaid offences of wrongful

restraint and public nuisance committed by petitioners. The

only allegation levelled against them is that they have

conducted the road show 7 minutes beyond the permissible

time. However, this Court is of the view that the contents of

the complaint dated 27.11.2003 lodged by 2nd respondent, the

statements of L.Ws.1 to 3 and charge sheet lack the ingredients

of the aforesaid offences alleged against petitioners. Therefore,