Proceedings involving vague allegations that lack the essential statutory ingredients, are not supported by evidence, and appear to be motivated by political malice, constitute an abuse of the court's process and are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER:

The petitioner prays for quashing of C.C.No.394 of 2023 for the offences under sections 143 and 341 read with section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate under Prohibition Act (Excise Court)-cum-Special Court, Hyderabad.

2. The offences emanate from a Complaint dated 15.10.2019 given by one M.Pavan Kumar to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nereducherla P.S. with regard to an incident which took place on 15.10.2019 at 7:15 P.M. and relates to the “BJP contesting candidate” Kota Rama Rao who along with “BJP President” one Laxman and other leaders held a road show on the main road in Dirshincherla Village causing a hold up of traffic for thirty minutes. The de facto complainant requested the Police to take legal action against Kota Rama Rao as per the Model Code of conduct of the Election Commission of India.

3. Pursuant to the Complaint dated 15.10.2019, an FIR in Crime No.184 of 2019 was registered on the file of the Nereducharla, P.S. on the same day i.e., on 15.10.2019 against Kota Rama Rao and others. The contents of the Complaint/Statement of Complaint as recorded in the FIR further allege violation of Moral Code of Conduct Rules (MCC Rules). Subsequently, a Chargesheet was filed against Kota Rama Rao and Kova Laxman reiterating the incident which took place on 15.10.2019 at 07:15 P.M. hours at Dirshincherla Village, Nereducherla Mandal.

4. The specific charge against Kota Rama Rao (A.1.) and Kova Laxman (A.2.) is that they gathered some other party members and formed an unlawful assembly at Dirshincherla village for conducting a road show and obstructing free flow of public movement for about thirty minutes which caused difficulty to people. The accused persons were charged with the offences punishable under sections 143 and 341 read with section 34 of the IPC in C.C.No.394 of 2023 for participating in the said road show.

5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner (A.2) and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant is not represented.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed the relevant provisions of law in respect of the charges as well as the documents in support of his submissions. According to Senior Counsel, the Criminal Case was filed for political and collateral reasons and that none of the sections mentioned in the Chargesheet are applicable to the facts of the case.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/State of Telangana places the Complaint dated 15.10.2019 as well as the evidence given by L.Ws.1-6 to urge that the petitioner was correctly charged under the sections mentioned in the Chargesheet. The Additional Public Prosecutor relies on the evidence given by the Videographer (L.W.4) and the independent witnesses (L.Ws.5 and 6) in support of his submissions. It is further submitted that Clause (10) of the Permission No.C/1634/2019 dated 13.10.2019 granted to the petitioner for conducting a rally/procession during the 89 Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency Bye Elections, 2019 clearly mentions that the petitioner would be responsible for any aggravated law and order situation consequent to the rally/procession. The p