Vague allegations without specific acts cannot sustain criminal proceedings; freedom of speech must be protected.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1556 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 505(ii) and 341 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06-05-2019 at 21:00 hours, the complainant/LW.1, working as Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police at Jagtial Rural Police Station lodged a complaint stating that on the instructions of the Circle Inspector, he, along with Police Constables was deployed for bandobast duty at the Mango Market in Chalgal village due to a law and order issue concerning a place of worship for the Muslim community traders. While they were performing duty, it was noticed that Sk. Sajid @ Ajju and Sameeruddin had circulated a message in Urdu via WhatsApp, in the "Urdu News Jagtial" group, calling for a Dharna, thereby promoting enmity among groups and traders. Subsequently, at around 6:30 PM, Sk. Sajid @ Ajju, who is the State Treasurer of the PFI party, along with Sameeruddin and other members of PFI, entered the mango market, provoked the traders, and organized a "Rasta Roko" from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM on the Nizamabad–Jagtial NH-

63, causing inconvenience to the general public.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered the case in Crime No.136 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 505 (ii) and 341 read with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him.

4. Heard Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case is a Suo Moto crime registered by the Police themselves without any independent complaint from a citizen or the Mango Market authorities, and that the petitioners have been falsely implicated without any credible material and that the allegations made in the FIR are vague, general, and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. Even as per the prosecution version, there is no material to show the presence or involvement of the petitioners at the scene of offence. He further submitted that there was an unexplained delay in dispatching the FIR to the Court, which was submitted only on 08.05.2019, though the alleged incident took place on 06.05.2019 and the FIR was registered on the same day at

21:00 hours.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions under Sections 448, 505 (ii), and 341 of IPC are not attracted in the facts of the case as there is no allegation of house trespass by entering any private or protected premises, nor is there any specific statement made by the petitioners that promotes enmity or hatred among groups. The allegation of wrongful restraint is also not supported by any material and that the Police, in collusion with the de facto complainant, who himself is a police officer, have acted with malice to target a specific set of individuals with a pre-determined objective of harassment, thereby misusing the legal process. He further contended that the Magistrate acted in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind while taking cognizance, despite non-compliance with t