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.2578 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao,

learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), to

quash the proceedings in C.C. No.437 of 2024 pending on the file

of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Court,

Hyderabad.

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and

2 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under

Sections - 341 and 290 of IPC.

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 - Sub-

Inspector of Police, Police Station of Musheerabad, Hyderabad,

have registered a case in Crime No.452 of 2023 against the

petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections - 188 and 20

of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1, eye-

KL,J

witnesses as LWs.2 and 3, panch witnesses as LWs.4 and 5. LW.6

is the Inspector of Police, who issued FIR and LW.7 is the

Investigating Officer.

5. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer

laid the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences

punishable under Sections - 341 and 290 of IPC.

6. In the complaint, dated 27.11.2023, respondent No.2

stated that he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police,

Musheerabad Police Station as on that date. On 27.11.2023 at

about 20:00 hours, while he was performing patrolling duties and

also to monitor the road show in the Sector Area along with

Assistant Sub-Inspector (LW.2) and Police Constable (LW.3), a

road-show led under the leadership of petitioner No.1 and he has

also applied permission for road show in the name of BRS MLA

contesting candidate of Musheerabad Assembly Constituency,

accused No.1, for canvassing from Ramnagar Cross Road to Fish

Market and from there to Supreme Hotel. In the said road show,

petitioner No.1 participated along with petitioner No.2. During the

said road-show at about 20:35 hours, organizers burst the crackers

in the public places and caused nuisance to common public. They

KL,J

have violated the Modal Code of Conduct by bursting the crackers

in the said road show. The same was also Videographed.

Therefore, he requested the Police to take action against the

petitioners herein.

7. As stated above, during the course of investigation, the

Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police (LW.2) and the Police Constable as LW.3 and

also stated in the aforesaid lines as stated by respondent No.2

(LW.1).

8. As stated above, initially, the said crime was registered

for the offences punishable under Sections - 188 and 290 of IPC.

On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the

charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the offences

punishable under Sections - 341 and 290 of IPC.

9. Section - 341 of IPC deals with 'punishment for wrongful

restraint'. Section - 339 of IPC deals with 'wrongful restraint', and

it says that 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

10. As discussed above, none of the witnesses including

respondent No.2 (LW.1), LWs.2 and 3 stated that they were

restrained by the petitioners herein or the petitioners obstructed

voluntarily to attract the said offence of wrongful restraint. Even

then, without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer

laid the charge sheet against the petitioner herein altering the

offence from Section - 188 of IPC to 341 of IPC. Therefore, the

statements of LWs.1 to 3 lack the ingredients of offence under

Section - 339 of IPC.

11. Section - 290 of IPC deals with 'punishment for public

nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for', and it says that

whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise

punishable by the Code shall be punished with fine which may

extend to two hundred rupees. Section - 268 of IPC deals with the

definition of 'public nuisance', and it says that 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 annoyance

to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy

property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury,

KL,J

obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have

occasion to use any public right.

12. As discussed above, statements of LWs.1 to 3 lack the

ingredients of Section - 268 of IPC.

13. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1, the Apex Court

cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very

sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear

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 FIR or in

the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down

certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section

- 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:

"(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.

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

KL,J

(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.

KL,J

(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 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 catena of

decisions.

14. In the present case, as discussed above, the contents of

statements of LWs.1 to 3 lack the ingredients of offences under

Sections - 339 and 268 of IPC. Therefore, without considering the

said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against

the petitioners herein. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings

in C.C. No.437 of 2024 against the petitioners is an abuse of

KL,J

process of law and they cannot go on. Thus, the proceedings in the

said CC are liable to be quashed.

15. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed