HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5030 of 2025

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr.G.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and Smt.Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.431 of 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 291, 186 and 188 read with Section 149 of IPC.

4. On the complaint dated 10.09.2023 of respondent No.2, Police, Dubbak Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.226 of 2023 against the petitioner and other accused for the aforesaid offences.

5. In the complaint dated 10.09.2023, the allegations leveled against the petitioner and other accused are that on 10.09.2023 respondent No.2 along with I.Srinivas, HG- 486 (LW.2) were in Blue Colt duties. At about 11.30 A.M. on 10.09.2023 they have information that the petitioner and other party activists conducting Dharna at main road Siddipet to Medak, near petrol bunk of Habsipur Village. On coming to know that respondent No.2 and LW.2 went to the said spot and observed that the petitioner and other party activists sitting on the road, conducting dharana and stopping on-going vehicles. They have raised slogans and demanded the Government has to provide BC bandhu to poor people. Thus, they have violated the Government orders.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating nd Officer recorded the statements of 2 respondent as L.W.1, Home Guard as LW.2 and Police Constables as L.Ws.3 and 4. LWs.5 and 6 are Panch witnesses. LW.7 is the Investigating Officer. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein and other accused and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.431 of 2024 for the aforesaid offences.

7. Petitioner filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. contending as follows:

i) The contents of the complaint dated 10.09.2023 and statements of LWs.1, 2 and 4 lack ingredients of the aforesaid offences;

ii) The Investigating Officer did not record the statement of any independent witness to show that the petitioner and other accused restrained them illegally.

Therefore, the contents of the charge sheet lack ingredients of the aforesaid offences; and iii) Petitioner herein is a Member of Legislative Assembly then and presently, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) from Medak Parliamentary Constituency. He was falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry.

8. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner are defences which he has to take before the trial Court. There are photographs to show that the petitioner and other accused conducted dharana and obstructed the free-flow of traffic, etc. Therefore, quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner in the said C.C. is not permissible.

9. In view of the above submissions, it is apt to note that Section 339 of IPC deals with wrongful restrain and the same is extracted as under:

“339. Wrongful restraint: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.”

As per the said provision, there should be voluntary obstruction of any person as to prevent the said person to proceed with any direction as the person has right. In the present case, there is no such allegation against the petitioner.

10. Section 291 of IPC deals with continuous of nuisance after injunction to discontinue and public nuisance is de