Telangana High Court
Kongari Mahesh vs State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10465 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for Ms. Haseena Sultana Ansari, learned counsel for
petitioners and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel
representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondents.
2. This petition is filed by petitioners/A.6 to A.15 & A.17
under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against them in
C.C.No.1782 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, in
respect of Crime No.88 of 2023 of Banjara Hills Police
Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
341, 353 and 143 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with
Section 149 IPC, on the basis of the complaint dated
03.02.2023 lodged by 2nd respondent.
2 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
3. In the aforesaid complaint lodged by 2nd respondent, the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills Police Station, at the
relevant point of time, it is alleged that on 03.02.2023, at about
12:50 hours, while he and other staff, L.Ws.2 to 4, were
performing Bandobust duty at ICCC Building, Road No.12,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, they noticed that around 16
members were unlawfully assembled opposite to ICCC
building. They were proceeding to enter into ICCC building
without any permission. Immediately, he along with
Bandobust staff stopped them and enquired the purpose of
their assembly. Then, they revealed that they came to ICCC
building to protest against the alleged anomalies in the
ongoing Police Recruitment demanding “to allow SIs and PCs
police job aspirants to write main exams who were qualified in
1600/800 meters running” and other demands on the call given
by A.1. He and other staff requested the aforesaid people not
to conduct protest. They did not heed to their request and
started argued with them. They have also sat on the road by
raising slogans against the Government causing obstruction to
the free flow of traffic and causing inconvenience to the
3 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
public. Therefore, L.W.1 and others have taken them into their
custody and shifted them to Banjara Hills Police Station. On
enquiry, they came to know about the names of the petitioners.
The statements of L.Ws.2 to 4 are in the same lines. Basing on
the said statements of L.Ws.1 to 4, the Investigating Officer
has filed charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the
aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide
C.C.No.1782 of 2023. 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 to the said ICCC building,
Road No.12, Banjara Hills, only to protest against the
Government in silent manner. 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
4 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
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 Pradesh2 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 Public Prosecutor would contend that there are
specific allegations against the petitioners. L.Ws.1 to 4 are
Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Constable, Woman Police
Constable and Home Guard respectively. The petitioners along
with others have raised slogans against the Government and
conducted dharna in front of ICCC building which caused
obstruction for free flow of traffic and caused inconvenience
1
(2016) 15 SCC 525
2
2024(3) ALD (Crl.) 641 (AP)
3
Crl.P.No.3865 of 2024 dated 07.06.2024
5 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
to the public. All the contentions raised by the petitioners are
defences which cannot be considered in a petition filed under
Section 528 BNSS. The petitioners have to face trial and prove
their innocence. With the said submissions, she sought to
dismiss the present Criminal Petition.
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 339 IPC deals with wrongful restraint. The same
is extracted below:
“339. 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.”
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,
6 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
L.Ws.1 to 4 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 4 lack the ingredients of Section
339 IPC.
8. 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.”
7 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
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 to 4, 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 4 lack the ingredients of
Section 353 IPC.
9. 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, 1the 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
8 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024(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 4, stated with regard to the same.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the statements of
L.Ws.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of Section 141 IPC.
10. 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.
9 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
“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.”
11. 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.
12. 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 aware of the offence being committed in
4
AIR 2018 SC 2472
10 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
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 Maharashtra5.
13. 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.
14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal6, the Apex Court
cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very
sparingly and 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 guidelines/parameters for exercise of
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same read as under:
5
(2011) 7 SCC 295
6
(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
11 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024“(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.
12 KL, J
Crl.P.No.10465 of 2024
(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.1782 of 2023 against the petitioners is
an abuse of process of law.
15. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.1782 of 2023 on the
file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in
respect of petitioners/A.6 to A.15 and A.17 only. However, it
is made clear that the proceedings in the above said C.C. may
go on in respect of other accused.
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
24th JUNE, 2025.
kvni