ORDER

Heard Sri Kolukuri Akhil Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 371 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cases, at Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 and 10 to 12 in the CC. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are punishable under Sections 341 and 290 of IPC.

3. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Police, Yeldurthy, registered a case in Crime No.36 of 2018 against the petitioners herein and others for the aforesaid offences. The aforesaid FIR was registered basing on the panchanama, dated 02.06.2018. In the said panchanama, it is stated by panchas that they have attended the panchanama on the request made by Yeldurthy police at Ambedkar cross roads Yeldurthy.

Sub-inspector of Police, Sri V.Ganga Raju-complainant and other Police officials were present. The complainant introduced himself as SI of Yeldurthy and requested them to act as panchas to the said panchanama. It is further stated that some people were squatting on the road without any permission. On enquiry, they came to know the names of the said persons, who are squatting. Thus by squatting on the said road, petitioners and others have caused inconvenience to the people and also vehicles.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of ASI, Constables of the said police station as PWs-1 to 4, eye witnesses. All of them in one voice stated that the petitioners and others are squatting on the road without obtaining any permission and started raising slogans against the Government.

5. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences and the same was taken on file vide C.C.No.52 of 2020.

6. Section 268 of IPC deals with definition of public nuisance, the same is extracted below:-

“A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage”.

Section 290 of IPC deals with punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for, the same is extracted below:-

“Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees”.

Section 339 of IPC deals with definition of wrongful restraint, the same is extracted below:-

“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. Exception.-The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section”.

Section 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongful restraint, which is extracted below:-

“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”.

7. As discussed supra, the contents of panchanama, dated 02.06.2018 and statements of LWs-1 to 4, eye witness lacks the ingredients of the said offences. None of the witnesses stated about their wrongful restrainment or of any person. The Investigating Officer did not record the statement of any individual to prove that the petitioners and other accused restrained