ORDER:

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-A1 seeks to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.20 of 2020 on the file of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered against him and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506, 188 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 32 of the Indian Police Act, 1861.

2. The complainant is the S.I. of Police, Machavaram Police Station. The contents in the complaint are that on 07.01.2020 while he was on duty, the S.H.O. of Machavaram Police Station, received information that some leaders from Telegu Desam Party and their associates were going to conduct dharna on the National Highway against the decision of the Government to shift the capital of Andhra Pradesh from Amaravati to Visakhapatnam and therefore, the S.H.O. instructed him and P.Cs 2187 and 3606 and a Home Guard to go to the house of the petitioner-A1, who is the ex-MLA of TDP of Central Constituency, and to inform that proceedings under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 30 of the Indian Police Act were proclaimed in the complaint mentioned areas of Vijayawada city and therefore, none should conduct any rastarokos or rallies or dharnas on the National Highway causing obstruction to Government activities. On such instructions, the complainant along with other police personnel went to the residence of the petitioner-A1 and issued notices to him and other accused. However, they refused to receive the notices and fiercely proclaimed that they would proceed with dharna and flung the notices on the police. Further, at about

1.00 p.m. on that day, the petitioner-A1 along with his associates came on to the road by holding placards making shouts. When the complainant and his staff tried to prevent them, all the accused did not pay heed to their words and on the other hand, the accused pushed them and abused them in filthy language and obstructed them from discharging the public duties and threatened them. Hence the complaint.

3. Heard Sri M.L. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner-A1, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

4. Denying the complaint allegations as false to the core, learned counsel for the petitioner-A1 argued that a false case was registered against the petitioner-A1 and other accused, as they happened to be the members of opposition party. It is further argued that the petitioner-A1 has not committed any atrocious acts as alleged in the complaint. On the other hand, he politely received the notice issued by the complainant. When the complainant wanted to illegally trespass into the house of the petitioner-A1, he only restrained him from entering into the house saying that women and elders were inside the house. Further, when the petitioner-A1 was proceeding on his personal work, the police unnecessarily restrained him, in spite of his request that he was proceeding on his personal work, and booked the false case against him and other accused. Learned counsel thus prayed to allow the criminal petition and quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A1 in the FIR.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition saying that the high handed acts of the petitioner-A1 and other accused are writ large from the complaint allegations and the truth or falsity of the allegations can be decided only after a thorough investigation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The point for consideration is, whether there are any merits in the Criminal Petition to allow?

7. POINT: To exercise the plenary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedings, certain principles have been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others1 . They are:

“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