Telangana High Court
N. Uttam Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 18 August, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5133 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya Mukkera, learned counsel for
the petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 4 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.470 of 2023 pending on the file
of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under
Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad.
3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and
4 respectively in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against
them are under Sections – 143, 147, 341 and 290 read with 149 of
IPC.
4. On the complaint dated 19.01.2021 lodged by respondent
No.2 – Sub-Inspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station,
Hyderabad, Police, Saifabad Police Station have registered a case
2
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
in Crime No.38 of 2021 against the petitioners herein and others
for the aforesaid offences.
5. In the complaint, the allegations levelled against the
petitioners herein are as follows:
i) Pursuant to the Call given by the All India Congress
Committee (AICC), on 19.01.2021 without any permission the
petitioners and others formed into an unlawful assembly at
Assembly premises and taken out a rally by giving loud
provocative speeches and slogans against the Government
demanding to cancel the three (03) Farm Laws passed by the
Central Government and to roll back the hike in prices of petrol
and diesel and reached Telugu Thalli Junction passing through
Ravindra Bharati and Iqbal Minar Junction.
ii) They reached Telugu Thalli Junction and sat down on the
road causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, created
nuisance on the road and gave provocative speeches to ‘lay seize’
the Raj Bhavan at Somajiguda, which is a Government House.
Therefore, they have committed the aforesaid offences and
accordingly requested the police to take necessary action against
them for the aforesaid offences.
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
6. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the Police, Saifabad
Police Station, registered the aforesaid crime.
7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1, police
constables of the said police station as LWs.2 and 3, who said to be
the eye-witnesses to the aforesaid incident apart from LW.4.
LWs.5 and 6 are panch witnesses. LW.7 is the Official who issued
FIR, while LWs.8 and 9 are the first and second Investigating
Officers in the aforesaid crime.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that
the complaint dated 19.01.2021 lodged by respondent No.2 and the
statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid
offences. LWs.2 and 3 are interested witnesses as they are police
constables of the very same police station and, therefore, their
statement cannot be taken into consideration. The Investigating
Officer did not examine any person who faced traffic disturbance
said to have caused on account of rally conducted by the petitioners
and other accused. The Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet
in a routine manner. Thus, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C.
cannot go on.
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
i) Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on
the decisions in Charan Singh v. State of U.P. 1, Prakash Karat
v. State of Kerala 2, Mohamed Lathifulla v. State 3, Athaulla
Jokatte v. The State of Karnataka 4 and Payal Shankar v.The
State of Telangana 5.
9. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that on
account of the rally conducted by the petitioners and others, traffic
disturbance was caused. The statements of LWs.1 to 4 attract the
aforesaid offences and so also the contents of the complaint. The
Investigating Officer having considered all the said aspects during
the course of investigation laid the charge sheet against the
petitioners and other accused. There is no error in it.
10. Respondent No.2 in his statement recorded under
Section – 161 of Cr.P.C. reiterated the contents of the complaint
dated 19.01.2021. LWs.2 and 3 police constables of the very same
police station, also stated on the same lines. LW.4 is a
businessman. He stated that he is the resident of Hafeez Complex,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and he is doing fish business in
1
. (2004) 4 SCC 205
2
. 2022 SCC OnLine Ker. 5243
3
. Crl,.O.P. No.16416 of 2021, decided on 20.09.2021 by Madras High Court
4
. Crl.P. No.6797 of 2022, decided on 17.04.2025 by Karnataka High Court
5
. Crl.P. No.8554 of 2024, decided on 26.11.2024
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
Ramnagar. On 18.01.2021 at about 11.30 A.M. while he was
coming from Ramnagar, Musheerabad to Telugu Thalli Flyover,
there were some Congress MPs. And MLAs, Ex. MLAs and others
gathered in the Assembly premises. Accused Nos.1 to 5, 16 and
other Ex. MLAs and MPs, volunteers as a legislature giving
provocative lectures headed a rally. They are giving slogans
against the Central Government approved three (03) Agricultural
Acts demanding to cancel such Acts and also take back the hike in
the prices of Petrol and Diesel with a high speed and sit across the
road and for commuting disturbances to the traffic and giving
provocative slogans. Thereafter, the police took them into custody.
11. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that
Section – 141 of IPC deals with ‘unlawful assembly’ and the same
is extracted as under:
“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-
(1) To overawe by criminal force, or show of
criminal force, 1the Central or any State
Government or Parliament or the Legislature of
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025any State, or any public servant in the exercise of
the lawful power of such public servant; or
(2) To resist the execution of any law, or of any
legal process; or(3) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or
other offence; or(4) 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(5) 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.”
12. Section – 143 of IPC deals with punishment for the
offence committed under Section – 141 of IPC. The same is
extracted as under:
“143. Punishment.–Whoever is a member of an
unlawful assembly, shall be punished with
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”
13. Section – 146 of IPC deals with ‘rioting”. The same is
extracted as under:
“146. Rioting.– Whenever force or violence is used by
an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly,
every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence
of rioting.”
14. Section – 147 of IPC deals with ‘punishment for rioting’.
The same is extracted as under:
“147. Punishment for rioting.– Whoever is guilty of
rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both.”
15. Section – 340 of IPC deals with ‘wrongful confinement”.
The same is extracted as under:
“340.Wrongful confinement.- whoever wrongfully
restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that
person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing
limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.”
16. Section – 341 of IPC deals with ‘punishment for
wrongful restraint’. The same is extracted as under:
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025“341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.– 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.”
17. Section – 290 of IPC deals with ‘punishment for public
nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for’. The same is
extracted 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.”
18. Section – 149 of IPC deals with ‘every member of
unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of
common object’. The same is extracted as under:
“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
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025of the committing of that offence, is a member of the
same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apt to note that
to attract the offence under Section – 141 of IPC, there should be
the following ingredients:
(i) There must be an assembly of five or more persons;
(ii) The members of the assembly must have a common object;
(iii) The common object must be any one of the following five;
(a) to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force,
the Government or any public servant,
(b) to resist the execution of any law or legal process, or
(c) to commit mischief or criminal trespass or other
offences,
(d) by criminal force or show of criminal force to take or
obtain possession of any property or deprive enjoyment
of a right of way or use of water or other incorporeal
rights,
(e) by criminal force or show of criminal force to compel
any other person to do what he is legally not bound to do
or omit to do that which he is legally bound to do.
10
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
20. A reading of the Section indicates that every assembly
of five or more persons by itself will not become an unlawful
assembly. An assembly of five or more persons will become
unlawful only when they have a common object and the said object
falls within the categories mentioned as first to fifth in Section –
141 of IPC. When the common object of the assembly does not
fall within any of the five categories specified in Section – 141,
even if the number of the assembly is more than five, the act
alleged will not attract the offence of unlawful assembly. Thus the
essence of the offence of unlawful assembly lies in the consensus
of purpose of more than five persons to commit an act specified in
Section – 141 of IPC.
21. It is apposite to notice that of the five categories in the
provision, three of them have criminal force as a necessary
ingredient. ‘Force’ is defined in Section – 349 of IPC, while
‘criminal force’ is defined in Section – 350 of IPC. The intentional
use of force for committing an offence or for causing injury, fear or
annoyance is an essential requirement of criminal force. The
remaining two facets require resistance to the execution of law or
11
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
of legal process or the commission of the offence of mischief or
criminal trespass.
22. The principle constituting the offence of unlawful
assembly have been succinctly analyzed by the Apex Court
in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh6 and in Akthar Alam alias
Aktarul Sheikh v. State of West Bengal7. Reference to the
decision in Aravindan v. State of Kerala8 is also relevant.
In Aravindan‘s case (Supra), the Kerala High Court observed that
“the mere fact that an assembly consists of five or more persons is
likely to disturb the public peace does not prove that the common
object of the assembly is one of those enumerated in the Section.
But there, Section – 151 of IPC may come in and it has been held
that the common object must be an immediate one and not to be
carried out at some future time.
23. As mentioned earlier, Section – 141 of IPC significantly
uses the words ‘criminal force’ in the three facets of the provision.
Thus, a protest or an assembly of persons without any criminal
force or show of criminal force would not make the assembly
6
. AIR 1965 SC 202
7
. (2009) 7 SCC 415
8
. 1983 KLT 193
12
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
unlawful. An assembly of more than five persons gathered for a
peaceful protest cannot fall within the term unlawful assembly.
The right to protest peaceably is an essential ingredient of the
fundamental right under Article – 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (b) of the
Constitution of India. An assembly of persons without arms or
without criminal force or without any intent to commit an offence
can only be a lawful assembly, which is not prohibited. Such an
assembly is a formation in the exercise of the right to freedom of
every citizen guaranteed under Article – 19 (1) of the Constitution
of India.
24. In this context, it is appropriate to observe that the right
to freedom of speech and expression and the right to form an
assembly guaranteed under the Constitution will be a dead letter if
every assembly is regarded as offensive conduct. The right to
dissent and the freedom to air views contrary to the views of the
Government is not an offensive conduct. In fact, the right to
dissent is the core of every democratic establishment. The
Constitutional Scheme of our Country embodies the salutary
principle of the right to dissent. When the dissent is expressed
without causing any harm or even a significant inconvenience, it
13
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
would be too puerile to proceed criminally against the dissenters.
Merely because the dissent is not acceptable to the majority, that is
not a reason to initiate criminal action unless the dissent was
coupled with violent, disorderly or damaging conduct by any
member of the assembly.
25. In Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In Re
v. Commissioner of Police9, where the Apex Court had while
upholding the right to dissent, directed the protests to be carried out
only in designated areas. In the said decision, the Court was
concerned with the indefinite and long periods of protests being
held at Shaheen Bagh, causing absolute inconvenience to the
public. The situation is different in the present case.
26. In Charan Singh1, the Apex Court while dealing with
the offences under Sections – 149 and 141 of IPC, held as under:
“13. Coming to the others who were armed with double-
barrelled guns and country-made pistols, the question is
regarding applicability of Section 149 IPC. Section 149
IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is
the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the
common object and not on common intention. Mere
presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person9
. (2020) 10 SCC 439
14
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025liable unless there was a common object and he was
actuated by that common object and that object is one of
those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an
unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons
cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149. The
crucial question to determine is whether the assembly
consisted of five or more persons and whether the said
persons entertained one or more of the common objects,
as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a
general proposition of law that unless an overt act is
proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of
an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a
member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he
should have understood that the assembly was unlawful
and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within
the purview of Section 141. The word “object” means the
purpose or design and, in order to make it “common”, it
must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be
common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that
is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A
common object may be formed by express agreement after
mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It
may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of
the assembly and the other members may just join and
adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same.
It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage.
The expression “in prosecution of common object” as
appearing in Section 149 has to be strictly construed as
equivalent to “in order to attain the common object”. It
15
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025must be immediately connected with the common object
by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be
community of object and the object may exist only up to a
particular stage, and not thereafter. Members of an
unlawful assembly may have community of object up to a
certain point beyond which they may differ in their
objects and the knowledge, possessed by each member of
what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their
common object may vary not only according to the
information at his command, but also according to the
extent to which he shares the community of object, and as
a consequence of this the effect of Section 149 IPC may
be different on different members of the same assembly.
14. “Common object” is different from a “common
intention” as it does not require a prior concert and a
common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough
if each has the same object in view and their number is
five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve
that object. The “common object” of an assembly is to be
ascertained from the acts and language of the members
composing it, and from a consideration of all the
surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the
course of conduct adopted by the members of the
assembly. What the common object of the unlawful
assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is
essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in
view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the
members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the
16
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in
all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common
object, the same must be translated into action or be
successful. Under the Explanation to Section 141, an
assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled,
may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary
that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to
render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence
at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not
material. An assembly which, at its commencement or
even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently
become unlawful. In other words, it can develop during
the course of incident at the spot eo instanti.
15. Section 149 IPC consists of two parts. The first part of
the section means that the offence to be committed in
prosecution of the common object must be one which is
committed with a view to accomplish the common object.
In order that the offence may fall within the first part, the
offence must be connected immediately with the common
object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused was
a member. Even if the offence committed is not in direct
prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may
yet fall under Section 141, if it can be held that the
offence was such as the members knew was likely to be
committed and this is what is required in the second part
of the section. The purpose for which the members of the
assembly set out or desired to achieve is the object. If the
object desired by all the members is the same, the
17
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025knowledge that that is the object which is being pursued is
shared by all the members and they are in general
agreement as to how it is to be achieved and that is now
the common object of the assembly. An object is
entertained in the human mind, and it being merely a
mental attitude, no direct evidence can be available and,
like intention, has generally to be gathered from the act
which the person commits and the result therefrom.
Though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down under the
circumstances from which the common object can be
culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature
of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at or before
or after the scene of incident. The word “knew” used in
the second branch of the section implies something more
than a possibility and it cannot be made to bear the sense
of “might have been known”. Positive knowledge is
necessary. When an offence is committed in prosecution
of the common object, it would generally be an offence
which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was
likely to be committed in prosecution of the common
object. That, however, does not make the converse
proposition true; there may be cases which would come
within the second part but not within the first part. The
distinction between the two parts of Section 149 cannot be
ignored or obliterated. In every case it would be an issue
to be determined, whether the offence committed falls
within the first part or it was an offence such as the
members of the assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of the common object and falls
18
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025within the second part. However, there may be cases
which would be within the first part; but offences
committed in prosecution of the common object would be
generally, if not always, within the second part, namely,
offences which the parties knew to be likely to be
committed in the prosecution of the common object.
(See Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore [AIR 1956
SC 731 : 1956 Cri LJ 1365].”
27. In the light of the aforesaid principles, coming to the
facts of the present case, as discussed above, in the complaint dated
19.01.2021 and in the statements of LWs.1 to 4, there is no
mention that the petitioners and other accused assembled together
with a common object to do the aforesaid acts. There is no
criminal force alleged to have been used by the petitioners. The
allegations levelled against the petitioners herein and other accused
are that they formed into unlawful assembly at Assembly premises,
raised slogans and tried to lay seize of Raj Bhavan. They were
arrested at Telugu Thalli Statue itself. The other allegations made
by respondent No.2 as stated by other witnesses, the petitioners and
other accused sat on the road causing obstruction to the free flow
of traffic creating nuisance on the road. The said fact was not
spoken to by LW.4. There was protest by the petitioners against
19
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
the said Three Farm Laws and also hike in petrol and diesel prices.
Admittedly, both the petitioners herein were sitting MLAs at the
relevant point of time. The said protest was peaceful. There was
no criminal intention or force by the petitioners. Without
considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge
sheet against the petitioners herein and the trial Court took
cognizance of the offence under Section – 143 of IPC against the
petitioners herein.
28. To attract offence under Section – 146 of IPC, there
should be force or violation is used by an unlawful assembly, or by
any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such
assembly. In the present case, none of the witnesses stated about
the common object and force or violation by the petitioners herein
and other Members. The allegations levelled against the petitioners
herein and other accused are that they have protested against three
Farm Laws and hike in prices of Petrol and Diesel. Therefore, the
proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against the petitioners herein for
the offence under Section – 147 of IPC cannot go on as the contents
of the complaint dated 19.01.2021 and the statements of LWs.1 to
4 lack the ingredients of the said offence.
20
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
29. To attract the offence under Section – 340 of IPC i.e.,
wrongful confinement, there should be wrongful restrainment of
any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from
proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits. In the present
case, there is no allegation of confinement, much less wrongful
confinement. The contents of complaint dated 19.01.2021 and the
statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the said wrongful
confinement. Therefore, the proceedings in the said C.C. for the
offence under Section – 341 of IPC cannot go on against the
petitioners herein.
30. To attract the offence under Section – 290 of IPC, the act
must qualify as a public nuisance as defined under Section – 268 of
IPC. It means there must be something that causes annoyance,
injury, or obstruction to the public or those who use a public space.
In the present case, the contents of complaint dated 19.01.2021 and
the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the said
nuisance, such as causing annoyance, injury, or obstruction to the
public or those who use a public space etc. Though, it is alleged
that on account of rally conducted by the petitioners and others,
there was disturbance to the traffic etc. When such is the case, the
21
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
Investigating Officer should have examined some persons who
alleged to have faced traffic disturbance on account of conducting
of rally by the petitioners. The Investigating Officer did not do so.
Therefore, the complaint dated 19.01.2021 and the statements of
LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of offence punishable under
Section – 290 of IPC. Thus, the proceedings in the said C.C. for
the offence under Section – 290 of IPC cannot go on against the
petitioners herein.
31. To attract the offence under Section – 149 of IPC, there
should be an existence of unlawful assembly and the commission
of an offence by a member of that assembly and that the offence
was committed in prosecution of the common object of the
assembly or was one that the members knew was likely to be
committed. As already discussed above, there was no unlawful
assembly as defined under Section – 141 of IPC. Thus, the
contents of complaint as well as the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack
the ingredients of the said offence. Therefore, the proceedings
against the petitioners herein for this offence are also liable to be
quashed.
22
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
32. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 10, 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 Magistrate10
. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
23
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025within 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
24
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025concerned, 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.
33. In the present case, as discussed above, the contents of
statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid
offences. 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.470
of 2023 against the petitioners herein – accused Nos.1 and 4 is an
abuse of process of law and they cannot go on. Thus, the
proceedings in the said CC are liable to be quashed.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid
down in the aforesaid decision, the present Criminal Petition is
allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.470 of 2023 pending on
25
KL,J
Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases
under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad, are hereby
quashed against the petitioners herein – accused Nos.1 and 4 alone.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
18th August, 2025
Mgr