Shaik Sajid Sajju vs The State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2025

Telangana High Court

Shaik Sajid Sajju vs The State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


            CRIMINAL PETITION No.6324 of 2025


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1556 of 2020 on

the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Jagtial, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 505(ii) and 341 read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06-05-2019 at

21:00 hours, the complainant/LW.1, working as Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police at Jagtial Rural Police Station lodged a

complaint stating that on the instructions of the Circle

Inspector, he, along with Police Constables was deployed for

bandobast duty at the Mango Market in Chalgal village due to a

law and order issue concerning a place of worship for the

Muslim community traders. While they were performing duty, it

was noticed that Sk. Sajid @ Ajju and Sameeruddin had

circulated a message in Urdu via WhatsApp, in the “Urdu News

Jagtial” group, calling for a Dharna, thereby promoting enmity
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6324 of 2025

among groups and traders. Subsequently, at around 6:30 PM,

Sk. Sajid @ Ajju, who is the State Treasurer of the PFI party,

along with Sameeruddin and other members of PFI, entered the

mango market, provoked the traders, and organized a “Rasta

Roko” from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM on the Nizamabad-Jagtial NH-

63, causing inconvenience to the general public.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered the

case in Crime No.136 of 2019 for the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 505 (ii) and 341 read with 34 of IPC and after

completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the

learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal

petition to quash the proceedings against him.

4. Heard Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as

Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

present case is a Suo Moto crime registered by the Police

themselves without any independent complaint from a citizen or
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6324 of 2025

the Mango Market authorities, and that the petitioners have

been falsely implicated without any credible material and that

the allegations made in the FIR are vague, general, and do not

disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Even

as per the prosecution version, there is no material to show the

presence or involvement of the petitioners at the scene of

offence. He further submitted that there was an unexplained

delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court, which was submitted

only on 08.05.2019, though the alleged incident took place on

06.05.2019 and the FIR was registered on the same day at

21:00 hours.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

provisions under Sections 448, 505 (ii), and 341 of IPC are not

attracted in the facts of the case as there is no allegation of

house trespass by entering any private or protected premises,

nor is there any specific statement made by the petitioners that

promotes enmity or hatred among groups. The allegation of

wrongful restraint is also not supported by any material and

that the Police, in collusion with the de facto complainant, who

himself is a police officer, have acted with malice to target a

specific set of individuals with a pre-determined objective of
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6324 of 2025

harassment, thereby misusing the legal process. He further

contended that the Magistrate acted in a mechanical manner

without applying judicial mind while taking cognizance, despite

non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law and

absence of ingredients for the alleged offences. Therefore, he

prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

opposed the submissions stating that the FIR was registered

based on credible information regarding disturbance to public

order and obstruction of public road, and the involvement of the

petitioners surfaced during the preliminary investigation. He

further contends that the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima

facie case, and all procedural requirements have been

substantially complied with. Therefore, at this stage, quashing

of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise and prayed

the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material

placed on record, the allegations against the petitioners are that

they allegedly provoked traders at the Mango Market, Chalgal,

and organized a Rasta Roko, thereby obstructing the
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6324 of 2025

Nizamabad-Jagtial highway. However, it is evident that the case

was registered Suo Moto by the Police without any independent

complaint from the public or market authorities. The FIR

contains vague and general allegations and does not disclose

specific acts committed by the petitioners. There is also an

unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, which

casts doubt on the credibility of the case of the prosecution.

9. Further, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the

judgment of Anita Thakur vs. Government of Jammu and

Kashmir 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that

Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this

country and, thus, this provision ensures that the petitioners

could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner,

without using offensive language. Furthermore, the ingredients

of the alleged offences under Sections 448, 505(2), and 341 IPC

are not attracted on the face of the record, and no material is

produced to show any incitement of communal hatred or

wrongful restraint by the petitioners. It is the specific

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

1
2016 15 SCC 525
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.6324 of 2025

complaint appears to be politically motivated and aimed at

suppressing the democratic expression of the petitioners.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, continuation

of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but

abuse of process of law and the proceedings against the

petitioners are liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1556 of 2020 on

the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Jagtial, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

stand closed.

_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 18.07.2025

SAI