[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Mohammed Obaid Ur Rahman vs The State Of Telangana on 15 April, 2026
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.524 OF 2024
15.04.2026
Between:
Mohammed Obaid Ur Rahman
...Petitioner/Accused No.1
AND
The State of Telangana, represented by its Public
Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad and another
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), seeking quashment of
the proceedings in C.C. No. 7817 of 2022 pending on the file of the
learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Heard M/s. S.M. Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1/State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.09.2022 at
about 00:10 hours, the de facto complainant (respondent No. 2), while
on patrolling duty at Palton 'X' Road, noticed a gathering wherein
certain individuals were celebrating a birthday. It is alleged that the
petitioner cut a cake using a sword (long knife) and thereafter danced
while wielding the said weapon, accompanied by loud music. It is
further alleged that such acts caused obstruction to the free flow of
traffic and amounted to public nuisance. Based on the said allegations,
Crime No. 365 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Chaderghat,
and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed.
Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire
substratum of the prosecution rests upon the alleged use of a sword
during a private celebration. It is submitted that the material collected
during investigation does not disclose the essential ingredients of the
offences alleged. In particular, there is no specific material to
demonstrate (i) any actual obstruction to a particular individual so as to
constitute an offence under Section 341 IPC, or (ii) a degree of
annoyance or injury to the public at large sufficient to attract Section
290 IPC.
5. Further, it is contended that the invocation of Section 25(1)(b) of
the Arms Act is wholly misconceived in the absence of a valid
notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959, classifying
the alleged weapon (sword/long knife) as a regulated arm within the
specified area. In the absence of such statutory notification, the very
foundation for prosecution under the Arms Act is legally unsustainable.
Hence, continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance
upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench
at Aurangabad, in Dilip v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application
No. 3111 of 2018, decided on 18.02.2019), wherein, in a factually
similar scenario involving use of a sword for cake-cutting, the Court
held that in the absence of a notification under Section 4 of the Arms
Act, prosecution under Section 25(1-B)(b) cannot be sustained.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, fairly
submits that for attracting the provisions of Section 25(1-B)(b) of the
Arms Act, it is incumbent that a notification issued by the Central
Government under Section 4 of the Act specifying the class of arms
and the area to which such regulation applies. He candidly admits that
no such notification is in existence, classifying swords or long knives
for the relevant area. He, therefore, leaves the matter to the discretion
of this Court.
8. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made
and perused the material on record.
9. The principal allegation against the petitioner is that he used a
sword to cut a cake and subsequently danced with it during a birthday
celebration, allegedly causing obstruction to traffic and public
inconvenience.
10. At this juncture, it is apposite to examine the statutory
framework. Section 4 of the Arms Act empowers the Central
Government to regulate acquisition, possession, or carrying of arms
other than firearms in specified areas by issuing a notification in the
Official Gazette. Section 25(1-B)(b) penalizes contravention of such
notification. Thus, the existence of a valid notification under Section 4
is a sine qua non for attracting penal liability under Section 25(1-B)(b).
11. In the absence of any such notification brought on record, the
essential ingredient of the offence under the Arms Act is clearly
lacking. The ratio laid down in Dilip v. State of Maharashtra (supra)
squarely applies to the facts of the present case, wherein it was held
that failure to aver and establish the existence of a notification under
Section 4 would render the prosecution under Section 25
unsustainable.
12. Insofar as the offences under Sections 290 and 341 IPC are
concerned, the material on record does not prima facie disclose the
commission of these offences. There is no specific allegation
identifying any individual who was wrongfully restrained, nor is there
sufficient material to demonstrate a level of public nuisance affecting
the community at large, as required under law.
13. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the well-settled principles
governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C., as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The present case
squarely falls within the categories where (i) the allegations do not
disclose the commission of any offence, and (ii) continuation of criminal
proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
14. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner
would be unjustified and legally untenable.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in
C.C. No. 7817 of 2022 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 15.04.2026
MRKR
