Smt. Sunitha Laxma Reddy vs The State Of Telagana
2025 Latest Caselaw 3176 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Sunitha Laxma Reddy vs The State Of Telagana on 18 March, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.1964 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Kolukuri Akhil Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mrs.Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing

learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to

quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 371 of 2024 pending on the file

of learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cases,

at Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and

8 and 10 to 12 in the CC. The offences alleged against the

petitioners herein are punishable under Sections 341 and 290 of

IPC.

3. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged

by respondent No.2, Police, Yeldurthy, registered a case in Crime

No.36 of 2018 against the petitioners herein and others for the

aforesaid offences. The aforesaid FIR was registered basing on the

panchanama, dated 02.06.2018. In the said panchanama, it is stated

by panchas that they have attended the panchanama on the request

made by Yeldurthy police at Ambedkar cross roads Yeldurthy.

Sub-inspector of Police, Sri V.Ganga Raju-complainant and other

Police officials were present. The complainant introduced himself

as SI of Yeldurthy and requested them to act as panchas to the said

panchanama. It is further stated that some people were squatting on

the road without any permission. On enquiry, they came to know

the names of the said persons, who are squatting. Thus by

squatting on the said road, petitioners and others have caused

inconvenience to the people and also vehicles.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

recorded the statements of ASI, Constables of the said police

station as PWs-1 to 4, eye witnesses. All of them in one voice

stated that the petitioners and others are squatting on the road

without obtaining any permission and started raising slogans

against the Government.

5. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating

Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the

aforesaid offences and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.52

of 2020.

6. Section 268 of IPC deals with definition of public nuisance,

the same is extracted below:-

"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, 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".

Section 290 of IPC deals with punishment for public nuisance in

cases not otherwise provided for, the same is extracted below:-

"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".

Section 339 of IPC deals with definition of wrongful restraint, the

same is extracted below:-

"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".

Section 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongful restraint,

which is extracted below:-

"Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".

7. As discussed supra, the contents of panchanama, dated

02.06.2018 and statements of LWs-1 to 4, eye witness lacks the

ingredients of the said offences. None of the witnesses stated about

their wrongful restrainment or of any person. The Investigating

Officer did not record the statement of any individual to prove that

the petitioners and other accused restrained them wrongfully. Even

the contents of the said statements, including panchanama lacks the

ingredients of Section 268 of IPC. Without considering the same,

the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners

herein.

8. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, 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.

(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 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.

9. In the light of the said principle and discussion, continuation

of proceedings in C.C.No.371 of 2024 against the petitioners

herein is an abuse of process of law.

10. In the light of the said discussion, this criminal petition is

allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.371 of 2024 pending on

the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for

Excise cases, at Hyderabad against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to

5, 7 to 8 and 10 to 12, alone, are quashed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in the writ petitions shall stand closed.

___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

18.03.2025 pss

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1964 of 2025

18.03.2025 pss