THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11332 of 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner/accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.446 of 2018 pending on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 147, 148, 353, 153-A r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

2. Heard Sri Habeeb Abubakar Alhamed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. There are 18 accused in this crime. Trial was conducted in C.C.446 of 2018 for A.1, A.2, A.6, A.7, A.9 and A.15 and while filing charge sheet it is mentioned that a separate charge sheet would be filed for the absconding accused (A.3 to A.5, A.8, A.10 to A.14, A.16 to A.18).

4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner no separate charge sheet is filed till date and no information is furnished whether separate charge sheet is filed or not and in C.C.No.446 of 2018, trial was conducted and the trial Court acquitted A.1, A.2, A.6, A.7, A.9 and A.15. In the said judgment it was observed that if the incident allegedly took place on 28.03.2010 and the mob attacked them and caused damage to their vehicle, they would have complained immediately after their return to the police station or on the next day, but the present case is filed with a delay of six days. PW1 did not assign any reason and explanation for filing a complaint with a delay of six days. Likewise, Ex.P8 FIR is also silent about the delay in lodging the complaint. Further complainant in his complaint had not disclosed the identity particulars of the assailants who attacked him and caused damage to his vehicle. In the absence of any particulars of identity, directly arresting accused creates doubt. Further, none of the investigating officers in their evidence disclosed as to how they concluded the involvement of accused persons in this case and on what basis they arrested the accused. There is no evidence on record to state that A.1, A.2, A.6, A.7, A.9 and A.15 are the persons who attacked PW1 and caused damage to his vehicle on the date of incident and Test Identification parade was also not conducted.

5. As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is an eye witness, in his evidence he testified that on 28.03.2010 at about 10:00 p.m., some mob consisting of 200 members formed into unlawful assembly near Falaknuma flyover bridge, Chandrayangutta and pelted stones on the passersby and also caused damage to the police vehicle. The alleged incident took place on 28.03.2010 at 10:00 p.m., whereas PW1 complained on 03.04.2010 at 2:30 p.m., PW1 is a Police Officer, who worked in South Zone Task Force, despite the same, he did not file a complaint on the same date of the incident. Admittedly, there is a delay of six days in lodging the complaint. There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the same is creating doubt about the incident itself. Further the investigating officer did not file any proof, such as a photograph to establish damage caused to the police vehicle bearing No.AP-9P-9513. Therefore, the trial Court opined that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused are the persons who caused communal disturbance and accordingly acquitted the accused Nos.1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 15. Hence, even if trial is conducted for the petitioner herein, no useful purpose would be served as in a full-fledged trial, none of the witnesses identified any of the accused and as there is no Test Identification Parade to identify the accused, continuation of proceedings against this petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.

6. Hence, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petiti