The court affirmed that a discharge application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. requires a limited examination of whether the charge is groundless, without delving into the merits of the case.

ORDER:

K. LAKSHMAN, J.

Heard Mr. Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.1 and Mr. Palle Nageswar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 in Crl.M.P. No.3803 of 2018 in C.C. No.26 of 2023 (Old C.C. No.675 of 2017) passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in C.C. No.26 of 2023 (Old C.C. No.675 of 2017). The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 147, 186, 427 read with 149 of IPC.

4. In the complaint dated 23.08.2017, de facto complainant, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Projection, Division-2, Kataram Village and Mandal, In-charge of Peddapalli, alleged that public hearing on Kaleshwaram Project was started at 11.00 A.M. on 23.08.2017 at Reddy Function Hall, Raghavapur Village, Peddapalli Mandal and District. The said hearing was going on smoothly. People were expressing their views. At 12.15 P.M., the petitioner – accused No.1, accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 and also about 300 number of persons started slogans against Chief Minister, lifted and throw chairs and disturbed the proceedings. The District Collector and Environmental Engineer requested them to pacify and asked them to share their views on the dais. There was chaos for a while and police intervened and there was disturbance to Government Employees to discharge duties.

5. On receipt of the said complaint, the police of Basanthnagar Police Station registered a case in Crime No.162 of 2017 against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections - 147, 353 and 427 read with 149 of IPC.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of de facto complainant as LW.1, Deputy Executive Engineer, Kataram Division as LW.2, Deputy Executive Engineer (Irrigation Department), Kataram Division as LW.3, VRO, Raghavapur as LW.4, VRA, Raghavapur as LW.5. LWs.6 and 7 are panch witnesses. LW.8 is the Investigating Officer.

7. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.26 of 2023 against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections - 147, 186 and 427 read with 149 of IPC.

8. During pendency of the aforesaid C.C., the petitioner herein - accused No.1 and accused Nos.3 to 6 and 8 to 13 filed an application under Section - 239 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P. No.3803 of 2018 to discharge them from the said C.C. on the following grounds:

i) LW.1 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and others at the instigation of Ruling Party leaders;

ii) The petitioner herein being the Vice President of Telangana Congress Committee and also was the former Minister and MLA from Manthani Assembly Constituency and others being representatives of Congress party participated in the said meeting only to bring the grievances of public

iii) Neither owner of Reddy Function Hall lodged any complaint against the petitioner and other accused, nor examined them by the police. This itself shows that there was no damage to the property. Thus, Section - 427 of IPC is inapplicable;

iv) Section - 186 of IPC is a non-cognizable offence, for which permission of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section - 195 of Cr.P.C. is required; and

v) The case is purely politically motivated.

9. The aforesaid application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor stating that the grounds on which the petitioner and others sought for discharge are triable issues. Contents of charge sheet prima facie constitute the ingredients of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner instead of facing trial, filed the said discharge application. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 5 under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. and on consideration of the said contents only he has laid the charge sheet against the petiti