The court quashed proceedings against petitioners due to lack of substantial evidence supporting charges of unlawful assembly and obstruction.

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.L.N. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri B. Narsing, learned counsel for petitioners and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

2. This petition is filed by petitioners/A.13 to A.15 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Cr.P.C .) to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1760 of 2023 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, in respect of Crime No.95 of 2023 of Panjagutta Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section s 143 , 341, 353 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 149 IPC, on the basis of the complaint dated 03.02.2023 lodged by 2^nd respondent.

3. In the aforesaid complaint lodged by 2^nd respondent, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Musheerabad Police Station, at the relevant point of time, it is alleged that on 03.02.2023, at about

12:30 hours, while he and other staff, L.Ws.2 and 3, were performing Bandobust duty near BB IV Gate, Pragathi Bhavan/CM Camp Office, Begumpet, Hyderabad, he saw that around 15 members were unlawfully assembled near Tourism Plaza, Begumpet. They were proceeding to Pragathi Bhavan without any permission. Immediately, he along with Bandobust staff stopped them and enquired the purpose of their assembly. Then, they revealed that they came to Pragathi Bhavan to protest against the alleged anomalies in the ongoing Police Recruitment demanding “to allow SIs and PCs police job aspirants to write main exams who were qualified in 1600/800 meters running” and other demands on the call given by A.1. He and other staff requested the aforesaid people not to conduct protest. They did not heed to their request and started argued with them. They have tried to go into Pragathi Bhavan without permission. They have also sat on the road by raising slogans against the Government causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic and causing inconvenience to the public. Therefore, L.W.1 and others have taken them into their custody and shifted them to S.R. Nagar Police Station. On enquiry, they came to know about the names of the petitioners. The statements of L.Ws.2 and 3 are in the same lines. Basing on the said statements of L.Ws.1 to 3, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the aforesaid offences. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.1760 of 2023. Challenging the said proceedings, petitioners filed the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. There is no criminal intent. There is no unlawful assembly. They went to the said Tourism Plaza, Begumpet, only to protest against the Government in silent manner. With regard to the police recruitment, the Government has changed the Rules after issuance of notification. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioners and others and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and others. Petitioners are students and they are appearing for competitive examinations. The police implicated them with a false motive. The Investigating Officer did not record the statements of any independent witness. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Anita Thakur and others v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others , [(2016) 15 SCC 525] and Mullapudi Bapi Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh , [2024(3) ALD (Crl.) 641 (AP)] and Kotha