ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.908 of 2017 on the file of the learned XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Commissionerate at Rajendranagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2-Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Rajendranagar, Cyberabad Commissionerate, lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that when he along with his staff are conducting drunken drive test at Pillar No.135, near Eshwar Theater, Hyderguda, the petitioners are going to Aramghar from Mehdipatnam in drunken condition, as such, he stopped them but they abused him and his staff in filthy language, obstructed the traffic flow on the road and his lawful duties and created nuisance. Basing on the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.638 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 504 read with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, vide C.C.no.908 of 2017, before the learned XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad Commissionerate at Rajendranagar.

3. Heard Sri Krupachand Gogineni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners do not constitute any offence as they are vague and baseless and that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and they are eking their livelihood by doing daily labour works. Learned counsel contended that respondent No.2 stopped the vehicle and took the keys, when the petitioners asked for the keys, their ego has been hurt and lodged a complaint against the petitioners. He further contended that neither breathing analysis test was conducted nor motor cycle was seized, which clearly shows that the allegations are vague. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature as they abused the police in filthy language and obstructed their lawful duties, therefore, the same requires trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes. Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the avermetns made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.

7. Furthermore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori1, wherein in paragraph No.14, held as under:

“The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in