[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
T.Raja Singh vs The State Of Telangana on 21 April, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1753 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Gummala Bhasker Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Sri
Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.1.
2. The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners to
quash the proceedings in C.C. No.473 of 2023 pending on the file of
the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally,
Hyderabad.
3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 21
in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against them are under
Sections -143, 147, 341, 447, 152, 188, 269 read with 149 of IPC,
Section 51 (1) (b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 ( for short, ‘DM
Act’), and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. The aforesaid
Sections are akin to the Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS) which are as follows:-
IPC BNS 141 189 143 189(2) 146 191 147 191(2) 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025 152 195 188 223 269 271 339 126 341 126(2) 441 329 447 329 (3)
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2021 on credible
information that the BJP Members staging a dharna at GHMC Head
Office with a demand to remove the illegal constructions on NALAs
and for the cleaning NALAs in GHMC Limits, 2nd respondent, Sub
Inspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad along with
other police personnel were on bandobasthu duties. At about 12.05
hrs, all of a sudden, around 150 BJP Members including the
petitioners herein/ A.1 to A.21 obstructed the public on road in front
of GHMC Head Office, without any permission and without following
COVID guidelines. Out of them, A.1 is T. Raja Singh, MLA, A.2 is
Chinthala Ramchandra Reddy, Ex-MLA and A.3 is NVSS Prabhakar,
Ex-MLA and others are also holding different cadres in the BJP party.
Despite their request to stop dharna, accused persons did not heed
their words and they used force on the police. Then, 2nd respondent
lodged a complaint with the Police, Saifabad Police Station, who in
turn, registered a case in Cr.No.289 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid
charge sheet before I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at
Nampally, Hyderabad, who numbered the same as C.C.No.473 of
2023.
5. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS:
i. The petitioners were falsely implicated in the present case
basing on false allegations.
ii. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet in routine
manner but he has not conducted investigation properly.
iii. The contents of the complaint and statements of the witnesses
lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the
petitioners.
iv. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences alleged without
applying judicial mind.
v. Continuation of proceedings in the present CC is nothing but
abuse of process.
vi. There is no prima facie evidence on record to support the case
of prosecution.
With the said submissions, they sought to quash the proceedings in the
present CC.
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
6. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
i) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there
are specific allegations against the petitioners herein. The contentions
raised by the petitioners are triable issues to be considered by the trial
Court only after full-fledged trial, but not at this stage. The petitioners
have to face trial and prove their innocence. The Investigating Officer
has recorded the statements of 5 witnesses and on consideration of the
same only, he has laid charge sheet against the petitioners. The
defence taken by the petitioners may not be considered in the present
petition filed under Section – 482 of Cr.P.C.
ii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
representing learned Public Prosecutor, sought to dismiss the present
petition.
7. FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) As stated supra, in the complaint dated 18.06.2021, 2nd
respondent Sub Inspector of Police, stated that on 18.06.2021 on
credible information that the BJP Members staging a dharna at GHMC
Head Office with a demand to remove the illegal constructions on
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025NALAs and for the cleaning NALAs in GHMC Limits, he along with
other police personnel were on bandobasthu duties. At about 12.05
hrs, all of a sudden, around 150 BJP Members including the
petitioners herein/ A.1 to A.21 obstructed the public on road in front
of GHMC Head Office, without any permission and without following
COVID guidelines. Despite their request to stop dharna,
petitioners/accused did not heed their words and they used force on
the police.
ii) On receipt of the said complaint, dated 18.06.2021, police
Saifabad, have registered a case in Cr.No.289 of 2021 against the
petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
iii) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
has recorded the statement of 2nd respondent – Sub Inspector of Police
as L.W.1, Police Constables of P.S. Saifabad, as L.Ws.2 and 3,
Woman Constable of the said Police Station as L.W.4. It is relevant to
note that in the charge sheet it has been specifically mentioned that
despite the efforts made to secure eye witnesses, no one came forward
to speak about the incident. LW.7 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who
issued the FIR, LW.8 is the first Investigating Officer, L.W.9 is
second Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet. Thus, it is clear
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025that there is no independent witness examined by the police to speak
about the acts committed by the accused attracting the aforesaid
offences.
iii) In view of the above rival submissions, it is apposite to
extract the relevant provisions of IPC, ED Act and DM Act, which are
as under:
INDIAN PENAL CODE
“188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public
servant.–Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by
a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order,
he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain
order with certain property in his possession or under his
management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such
disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or
injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person
lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one month or with fine which may
extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such
disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life,
health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.–It is not necessary that the offender should
intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as
likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is
likely to produce, harm.
Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant
lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a
religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A
knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot.
A has committed the offence defined in this section.”
269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease
dangerous to life.–Whoever unlawfully or negligently does
any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to
be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to
life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with
both.”
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
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
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.
143. Punishment.–
Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
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.
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.
152. Assaulting or obstructing public servant when
suppressing riot, etc.–Whoever assaults or threatens to
assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public
servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, in
endeavouring to disperse an unlawful assembly, or to
suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or attempts to
use criminal force to such public servant, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
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.
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 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.
441. Criminal trespass.–Whoever enters into or upon
property in the possession of another with intent to commit an
offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in
possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into
or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent
thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or
with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal
trespass”
447. Punishment for criminal trespass.–
Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both.
152. Assaulting or obstructing public servant when
suppressing riot, etc.–
Whoever assaults or threatens to assault, or obstructs or
attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his
duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an
unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or
threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public
servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.
10
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT
3. Penalty.–(1) Any person disobeying any
regulation or order made under this Act shall be
deemed to have committed an offence punishable
under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860).
(2) Whoever,–
(i) commits or abets the commission of an act
of violence against a healthcare service
personnel; or
(ii) abets or cause damage or loss to any
property, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than three months, but which may extend
to five years, and with fine, which shall not
be less than fifty thousand rupees, but which
may extend to two lakh rupees.
(3) Whoever, while committing an act of violence
against a healthcare service personnel, causes
grievous hurt as defined in section 320 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) to such person,
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months, but which
may extend to seven years and with fine, which
shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which
may extend to five lakh rupees.”
11
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT
“51. Punishment for obstruction, etc.–
Whoever, without reasonable cause–
(a) obstructs any officer or employee of
the Central Government or the State
Government, or a person authorised by the
National Authority or State Authority or
District Authority in the discharge of his
functions under this Act; or
(b) refuses to comply with any direction
given by or on behalf of the Central
Government or the State Government or
the National Executive Committee or the
State Executive Committee or the District
Authority under this Act, shall on
conviction be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year or with fine, or with
both, and if such obstruction or refusal to
comply with directions results in loss of
lives or imminent danger thereof, shall on
conviction be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years.”
iv) In view of the above, the legislative intent behind Section –
195 Cr.P.C. is that an individual should not face criminal prosecution
12
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
instituted upon insufficient grounds by person actuated by malice or
frivolity of deposition and to save the time of the court being wasted
by endless prosecution. In the absence of complaint by the public
servant concerned under Section – 195 Cr.P.C., the offence
under Section – 188 of IPC against accused cannot be sustained.
v) In order to convict any person for commission of offence
punishable under Section – 188 IPC, the Court has to satisfy itself that
the accused had not only violated the order promulgated by a public
servant but also the accused had actual knowledge of issuance of such
order. In the case on hand, there is no whisper in the charge sheet that
the accused had knowledge of the order.
vi) In Bhoop Singh Tyagi v. State1, the Delhi High Court held
that a person booked under Section – 188 of IPC must have actual
knowledge of public servant’s order requiring him to do or abstain
from doing some act. It was further held that acquiring or gaining of
such knowledge is a pre-requisite and any proof of general notification
promulgated by a public servant would not satisfy the requirement.
1
. 2002 Cri.L.J. 2872
13
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
vii) In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public
Prosecutor2 while dealing with the offences under Sections – 188 and
283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge held as under:
“5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner
conducted public meetings at three road junctions
contrary to the permission accorded for conducting
of a public meeting only at one specified place is
true, such a direction under Section 30 of the
Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by
the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent
of Police of the District but not by any of their
subordinates. If such a permission is granted
under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is
violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal
Procedure mandates that the complaint in this
regard has to be made by the public servant
concerned or some other person to whom such a
public servant is administratively subordinate to
enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence
under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by
the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have
been the authority to grant permission for the
public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge
2
. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009
14
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of
Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been
committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal
Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in
consequence to the alleged offence under Section
188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an
independent of the same. Even otherwise, the
conduct of public meeting at three road junctions
or obstruction to the traffic could not have been
considered as causing any danger or injury to any
person. In so far as the obstruction in any public
way is concerned, which can also be covered by
Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge
sheet cites only one witness to speak about the
traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when
the conduct of the public meeting at least at one
place has been permitted and if the gathering for
that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience
by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot
be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea
to construe the existence of an offence punishable
under Indian Penal Code. Under the
circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be
said to have any reasonable basis and in any view,
the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of
Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure,
has to fail.
15 KL,J Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025 7) As the complaint has failed due to its
unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety
have to fail, though the 1st accused alone
approached this Court by way of this Criminal
Petition.”
viii) In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari
District3 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao2
and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4, more particularly, guideline No.6, which
says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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
the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the
grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of
Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra
Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It further held that the proceedings shall
not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission
3
. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016
4
. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
16
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
under Section – 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the
complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section – 195
(1) (a) of Cr.P.C.
ix) In the case on hand, the police did not mention in the charge
sheet that the petitioners herein had knowledge of the order
promulgated by the public servant. Further, as already discussed
above, the Investigating Officer has not even examined any
independent witness to show that the petitioners did not wear any
mask and that they did not maintain physical distance of three feet
etc., and that on account of their acts, the innocent people gathered at
one place causing chance of spreading Corona Virus to the society.
x) It is relevant to note that G.O.Ms. No.13 would reveal that it
was issued by the Government of Telangana in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section – 2 of the E.D. Act, framing certain
regulations called as ‘The Telangana Epidemic Diseases (COVID-19)
Regulations, 2020’. Clauses – 16 and 17 of the regulation in the said
G.O. are relevant, which are as under:
“16. Any person, institution, organization violating
any provision of these Regulations shall be
deemed to have committed an offence punishable
17
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025under section 188 of Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860). The empowered officers may penalize any
person, institution, organization found violating
provisions of these Regulations or any further
orders issued by Government under these
Regulations.
17. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against
any person for anything done or intended to be
done in good faith under these Regulations.”
xi) In continuation of the said G.O.Ms.No.13, the State
Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 23.03.2020,
framing some more regulations to ensure social distancing to restrict
the spread of COVID-19, to be followed by all Shops, establishments
etc. In the said G.O., it is also mentioned that violation of the social
distancing norms shall be punishable under Sections – 188, 269 and
270 of IPC.
xii) A perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 30.05.2021 would
reveal that it was issued in exercise of powers conferred under the
Disaster Management Act,2005, on account of pandemic situation, the
Government has extended the lockdown with certain modifications
across the State of Telangana from 31.05.2021 to 09.06.2021 by
issuing directives to the concerned to implement the instructions
18
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
therein strictly. Even in the said G.O., instruction Nos.11 and 12
under the caption “General Instructions” is relevant to extract, which
are as under:
“11. Any violation of the aforesaid instructions
shall result in prosecution under Sections 51 to 60
of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section
188 of IPC as well as other applicable laws.
12. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against
any person for anything done or intended to be
done in good faith under these regulations.”
xiii) In view of the above, the contention of the petitioners that
they have staged dharna for the cause of public only and, thus, their
act would not amount to have committed any offence under Sections –
188, 269 of IPC and so also under Section – 3 of E.D. Act and Section
– 51 of D.M. Act, is sustainable.
xiv) Moreover, Section – 3 of the E.D. Act envisages that any
person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall
be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section
188 of IPC. This Court has already held that the petitioners have not
committed any offence, much less the offences under Section – 188 of
IPC.
19
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
xv) Section – 51 (b) of the D.M. Act prescribes punishment for
obstruction, etc, whoever, without reasonable cause refuses to comply
with any direction given by or on behalf of the Central Government or
the State Government or the National Executive Committee or the
State Executive Committee or the District Authority under this Act,
shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such
obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives
or imminent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.
xvi) In the present case, there is no allegation whatsoever
against the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, the allegation in
respect of the offence punishable under Section – 51 (b) of the D.M.
Act cannot be sustained against the accused.
xvii) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as
per Section 60 of the DM Act, 2005, the Police cannot register a case
on the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent has to file a
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate.
Without considering the same, on the complaint of 2nd respondent,
Police Saifabad, have registered the aforesaid crime and learned
20
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 51(b)
of DM Act.
xviii) In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to extract
Section 60 of the DM Act:-
60. Cognizance of offences -No Court shall take
cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a
complaint made by-
(a)the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central
Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any
other authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that Authority
or Government, as the case may be; or
(b)any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in
the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and his intention to
make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority,
the Central Government, the State Government, the District
Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.
8. With regard to the other offences alleged against the
petitioners herein, as stated above, Section 143 of IPC deals with
punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly, Section 147
deals with punishment for rioting, Section 341 of IPC deals with
punishment for wrongful restraint, Section 447 of IPC deals with
punishment for criminal trespass and Section 152 of IPC deals with
assaulting or obstructing public servant in discharge of his duty as
such public servant, in endeavouring to disperse an unlawful
21
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses, or threatens, or
attempts to use criminal force to such public servant.
9. To attract punishment for the offence of unlawful assembly,
there should be common object of the persons composing assembly
for the aforesaid purposes. In the complaint dated 18.06.2021,
statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 lacks the aforesaid ingredients. Therefore,
proceedings in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners for the offence
under Section 143 of IPC cannot go on.
10. As per Section 146 of IPC, there should be use of force or
violence by an unlawful assembly or by a member thereof in
prosecution of common object of such assembly.
11. In the present case, the same are lacking. None of the
witnesses spoke about the same against the petitioners herein.
Therefore, the offence under Section 147 of IPC cannot go on.
12. It is also apt to note that Section 338 of IPC deals with
wrongful restraint and to attract the offence under Section 339 of IPC,
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.
22
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
13. In the present case, none of the witnesses spoke about the
said obstruction much less voluntary obstruction to prevent that
person from proceeding in any direction. Therefore, the proceedings
in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners herein cannot go on.
14. Section 441 of IPC deals with criminal trespass. To attract
the said offence, one who enters into or upon property in possession of
another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or
annoy any person in possession of such property.
15. In the present case, the place of offence is GHMC office. 1st
petitioner is sitting MLA. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Former MLAs,
and some of the accused are Corporators of GHMC. Therefore, it
cannot be termed that they have trespassed into the GHMC office and
it amounts criminal trespass. Therefore, the contents of the complaint
and statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the said offence.
Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid CC against the petitioners
herein cannot go on for the said offence.
16. Section 152 deals with assaulting or obstructing public
servant when suppressing riot, etc. Whoever assaults or threatens to
assault, or obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the
discharge of his duty as such public servant, in endeavouring to
23
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
disperse an unlawful assembly, or to suppress a riot or affray, or uses,
or threatens, or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant,
he is liable for punishment prescribed thereunder. To attract the said
offence, the contents of the complaint and statements of L.Ws.1 to 4
lack the ingredients of the said offence. There is no assault or
obstruction of any public servant. Therefore, the proceedings in the
aforesaid CC against the petitioners herein cannot go on for the said
offence.
17. As stated above, in the charge sheet, the Investigating
Officer mentioned that in spite of his efforts to secure eye witnesses,
no one came forward to speak about the incident to prove that the
petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them. The
L.Ws.1 to 4, 7 to 9 are the complainant, Police Constables and
Investigating Officers and L.Ws.5 and 6 are panch witnesses.
Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the
petitioners herein.
18. The facts of the present case fall within the parameters laid
down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal4. Therefore, viewed from any
angle, continuation of proceedings in C.C. No.473 of 2023 is not
warranted and the same are liable to be quashed.
24
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1753 of 2025
CONCLUSION:
Applying the principle laid down in the above said judgments
and in view of the above said discussion, the present Criminal Petition
is accordingly allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.473 of 2023
pending on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners alone are hereby
quashed against the petitioners herein.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
criminal petition shall stand closed.
____________________
K. LAKSHMAN, JDate:21 .04.2025
Vvr.
[ad_2]
Source link