Mandava Harish, vs The State Of Telangana,
2025 Latest Caselaw 6272 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mandava Harish, vs The State Of Telangana, on 4 November, 2025

        THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                 CRIMINAL PETITION No.14208 of 2025

ORDER:

-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash

the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 & 5 in

C.C.No.4989 of 2025, on the file of the learned I Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 186 and 341 read with 149 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 & 5 as well as Sri Jitender Rao

Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

the respondent No.1- State.

3. The facts of the case are that on 26.07.2023, at 13:15 hours,

while the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station

(complainant herein) and other staff were performing patrolling in the

limits of Saifabad Police Station, they noticed some members of

Police Job Aspirants , who are 5 in number, organized "Protest

Programme" in front of Gate No.1 of Dr.BR Ambedkar Telangana

Secretariat for condemning implementation of G.O.Ms.No.46 in

Police recruitment and obstructed the duties of the Police officer and

thereby caused obstruction to the free flow of traffic of the secretariat

employees and wrongfully restrained the other vehicles unlawfully on

the main road. When the police personnel tried to stop them, they

obstructed their legitimate duties. As such, they were taken into

custody. On enquiry, they came to know about the names of the

petitioners. The statements of L.Ws.2 & 3, who are the eye

witnesses, are recorded during the course of investigation and the

Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the petitioners for

the aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide

C.C.No.4989 of 2025. Challenging the said proceedings, petitioners

filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that

contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the aforesaid

offences. There is no criminal intent. There is no unlawful assembly.

They went in front of Gate No.1 of Dr.BR Ambedkar Telangana

Secretariat to organize Protest Programme for condemning

implementation of G.O.Ms.No.46 in Police recruitment. With regard

to the police recruitment, the Government has changed the Rules

after issuance of notification. Without considering the said aspects,

the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioners

and others and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the

aforesaid offences against the petitioners and others. Petitioners are

students and they are appearing for competitive examinations. The

police implicated them with a false motive. The Investigating Officer

did not record the statements of any independent witness. He has

placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Anita Thakur and

others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others 1 and

Mullapudi Bapi Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 and Kothapally

Mahesh and others v. State of Telangana 3 . With the said

submissions, petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in the said

C.C.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that

there are specific allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners

along with others have raised slogans against the Government and

conducted dharna in front of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana

Secretariat building which caused obstruction for free flow of traffic

and caused inconvenience to the public. All the contentions raised

by the petitioners are defenses which cannot be considered in a

petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS. The petitioners have to

face trial and prove their innocence. With the said submissions, she

sought to dismiss the present Criminal Petition.

(2006) 15v SCC 525

2024(3) ALD (Crl.) 641 (AP)

Crl.P.No.3865 of 2024 dt.07.06.24

6. As discussed supra, the offences against the petitioners are

punishable under Sections 341, 353 and 143 IPC read with Section

149 IPC.

7. Section 341 IPC deals with wrongful restraint. The same is

extracted below:

"341. 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."

8. Thus, there should be voluntary obstruction of any person so

as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which

that person has a right to proceed. In the present case, except

saying that the petitioners conducted protest and raised slogans

against the Government causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic,

they have not stated about the wrongful restraint by the petitioners.

However, the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements

of any independent witness. Therefore, this Court is of the view that

the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of Section 341

IPC.

9. Section 353 IPC deals with assault or criminal force to deter

public servant from discharge of his duty. The same is relevant and it

is extracted below.

"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

Therefore, to attract the said offence, there should be assault and

use of criminal force to any person being a public servant in

execution of his duty as such public servant with an intention to

prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as public

servant. In the statements of L.Ws.1 to7, there is no mention about

the said obstruction or using of criminal force by the petitioners.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7

lack the ingredients of Section 353 IPC.

10. Section 141 IPC deals with unlawful assembly. It is relevant to

extract Section 141 IPC hereunder:

"141. Unlawful assembly.-- An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is--

(First)-- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (Second)-- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (Third)-- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (Fourth)-- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (Fifth)-- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation.-- An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."

Thus, there should be criminal force with an intention to obtain

possession of property or to deprive any person of enjoyment of a

right of way etc. In the present case, none of the witnesses, L.Ws.1

to 7 stated with regard to the same. Therefore, this Court is of the

view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of

Section 141 IPC.

11. Section 149 IPC deals with every member of unlawful

assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common

object. The same is relevant and it is extracted below.

"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of

offence committed in prosecution of common object.-- If

an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful

assembly in prosecution of the common object of that

assembly, or such as the members of that assembly

knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that

object, every person who, at the time of the committing of

that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty

of that offence."

12. It is relevant to note that Section 149 IPC does not create

separate offence but only it declares vicarious liability of all members

of unlawful assembly for committing of offence with common object

as held by the Apex Court in Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v.

Dudabhai Patel. 4

AIR 2018 SC 2472

13. It is also relevant to note that to attract Section 149 IPC, it

must be shown the criminal act to accomplish the common object of

unlawful assembly. It must be within the knowledge of other

members likely to be committed in prosecution of common object.

When the members of assembly were aware or likely to be aware of

the offence being committed in prosecution of common object, they

would be liable in terms of Section 149 IPC. The said principle was

also held by the Apex Court in Waman v. State of Maharashtra 5 .

14. It is also apt to note that common object is the main ingredient

to attract the offence under Section 149 IPC. In the present case,

none of the witnesses, L.Ws.1 to 4, stated about the common object.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4

lack the ingredients of Section 149 IPC.

15. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 6 , the Apex Court

cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly

and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, the 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

(2011) 7 SCC 295

(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. The same read 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 a catena of

decisions. In the light of the above, continuation of the proceedings

in C.C.No.4989 of 2025 against the petitioners is an abuse of

process of law.

16. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.4989 of 2025, on the file

of the learned on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in respect of

petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 & 5. However, it is made clear that

the proceedings in the above said C.C. may go on in respect of other

accused.

17. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

18. Miscellaneous applications pending , if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Dt.04.11.2025 ysk

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.14208 of 2025

Dt.04.11.2025 ysk