THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6474 OF 2025

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in CC.No.154 of 2023 (arising out of FIR No.29 of 2022 of Mangapet Police Station, Mulugu District) on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu. The offence alleged against petitioner is under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. S. M. Subhan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State. Perused the material on record.

3. Head Constable bearing batch No.H.C.717 is de-facto complainant, lodged a complaint against petitioner on 22.02.2022, FIR No.29 of 2022 under Section 353 of IPC is registered. Charge sheet is filed on 30.11.2023. It is alleged in the complaint/FIR that on 22.02.2022, Head Constable (bearing No.717 of Mangapet Police Station) received a 100 (dial) call at 15:38 hours from Akkineni Ramesh, resident of Rajupet, stating that two parties were quarreling. Complainant with police constable bearing No.4338 proceeded to the spot. It is further stated that Akkineni Raghavaiah, Akkineni Swaroopa Rani and petitioner/Akkineni Rajashekhar were occupying 12 feet road adjacent to Kancherla Durgarao’s house, by creating fake documents claiming it to be an empty land, (an extent of 1336 yards which actually is 480 yards). It is further stated that petitioner/accused argued with complainant inspite of being informed that he was discharging his legitimate duties, petitioner/accused continued to argue with him, thus obstructing the duties.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that ingredients of Section 353 of IPC are not made out from complaint/FIR. That Section 353 of IPC speaks of assault or criminal force to deter the public servant from discharging his duties. It is further submitted that on a perusal of complaint/FIR (including charge sheet), it is evident that the use of criminal force or assault is not even mentioned or stated. That in the absence of ingredients, proceedings in CC.No.154 of 2023 (arising out of FIR No.29 of 2022 of Mangapet Police Station, Mulugu District) on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu, are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there was a civil dispute between neighbours of Rajupet village, that one Akkineni Ramesh dialed 100 for assistance and complainant reached the spot, tried to pacify both parties. That Petitioner/accused (Akkineni Rajashekhar) obstructed complainant when he was discharging his legitimate duties. That Section 353 of IPC is attracted and charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, trial needs to go on and interference is not necessitated.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

7. On 22.02.2022, one Akkineni Ramesh, dialed 100 for assistance and Head Constable along with another police constable reached the spot. Dispute pertains to a parcel of land where one of the parties i.e., Kancherla Durgarao, claims that the other party i.e., Akkineni Raghavaiah, Akkineni Swaroopa Rani and Akkineni Rajashekhar were illegally occupying 12 feet road adjacent to his house by creating fake documents (at H.No.1-26 to an extent of 1336 yards which is actually 480 yards). On receiving the 100 call, both police personnel reached the spot at Rajupet Village.

8. In the complaint, it is averred that petitioner/accused argued with respondent No.2 saying “MI POLICE VALLU ENDUKU VACHARU, IKKADA MEEKU EM PANI, IKKADA NUNDI VENTANE VELLIPONDI”. In response, complainant seems to have stated that he had come for assistance upon 100 dial. It is further averred in the complaint that petitioner did not heed to the words of police personnel and obstruc