ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as the facts and circumstances in these two cases are identical, but, of course, some of the Petitioners are different, albeit they arise out of two different cases.

2. Criminal Petition No.1616 of 2025 and Criminal Petition No.1755 of 2025 have been filed challenging the chargesheet filed in C.C.No.1152 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional judicial First-Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 188 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the I.P.C., in Crime No.06/2020 of Robertsonpet Polic Station; and C.C.No.1304 of 2020 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188 (Para-II) of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the Act., in Crime No.100/2020 of Pedana Police Station.

3. The allegation against the Petitioners in C.C.No.1152/2020 is that the Petitioners formed into an unlawful assembly at a particular center of the city of Machilipatnam sitting in the main road and giving slogans for the arrest of Ex-Chief Minister Sri Nara Chandrabau Naidu by the Vijayawada police and giving slogans against the police. As they caused inconvenience, free flow of vehicular traffic and public, the Sub-Inspector of Police Robertsonpet Police Station/L.W.1 lodged a report which was registered as FIR in Crime No.06/2020 under Sections 341 and 188 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’ After completion of the investigation L.W.6 filed chargesheet.

4. The facts and circumstances in C.C.No.1304/2020 are that there was a lockdown announced by the Government of India and the District Magistrate, Krishna at Machilipatnam had issued orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Cr.P.C., for control of Covid-19 due to widespread of Carona Virus in the general public. On 09.04.2020, the Petitioners travelled together in a car violating the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Krishna at Machilipatnam in proceedings vide Rc.No.C1/55/M/2020 dated 22.03.2020 under Section 144 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The Head Constable/L.W.1 of Pedana Police Station lodged a report with L.W.7/Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedana Police Station, which was registered as a case in Crime No.100/2020 under Section 188 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and under Section 3 of ‘the Act.’ After investigation he filed chargesheet, which was number as C.C.No.1304/2020.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

7. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.1152/2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam; and C.C.No.1304/2020 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’?"

8. In the two chargesheets the alleged offences are Sections 341, 188 read with Section 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 of ‘the Act.’ Ms. M.Nikitha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in T.Jeevan Singh v. State of Telangana, Crl.P.No.2069/2023 dated 01.03.2023 wherein at paragraph No.6 while referring another judgment of the High Court of Telangana in Kodela Siva Prasad v. Koritala Venkata Ramanaiah, 2006 (3) ALT (Crl.)49 (A.P) it was held that obstruction in the free flow of traffic would not amount to wrongful restraint under Section 341 of ‘the I.P.C.’

9. The facts and circumstances in C.C.No.1152/2020, the Petitioners themselves form