THE HONOURABLE Smt.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings in SC No.905 of 2024 on the file of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar, for the offences under Sections 353, 290, 506 IPC and Section 25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act.

2. Heard Sri K. Ashok Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged act of committing the offence by using a knife, alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, does not fall under Section 25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act and that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the offence. He further submitted that even as per the contents of the complaint, the offence under Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act does not get attracted. Further, the petitioner has never committed any act of restraining the movement of the de facto complainant and has not resorted to any breach of public peace and never intimidated the de facto complainant. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the event if the Arms Act does not get attracted, the other offences under IPC do get attracted against the petitioner as per the allegations in the complaint and that during the course of investigation ample evidence has been collected to prove the offences against the petitioner herein and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. It is alleged that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter as per the record maintained by Meerpet Police Station, having involved in several crimes earlier. It is further alleged that the petitioner- accused got addicted to alcohol and used to threaten the passers-by, with criminal intimidation by showing the weapon. That about two months ago, he purchased a weapon i.e. a knife from roadside vendor and threatened the passers-by carrying the knife in his TVS Rider bike and that on 07.12.2023, the petitioner has wrongfully obstructed and argued with the de facto complainant and attacked him with knife and threatened by saying that he would kill him. The petitioner has also sent a voice message from his mobile to the de facto complainant in filthy language. The record further discloses that the police could recover a knife of 14.2 inches including grip with one side sharp edge in which the blade length is 9.2 inches, hand grip length is 5 inches, from the possession of the petitioner. The Schedule-I (V) of the Arms Rules, 2016 specifies that:

“Arms other than firearms:

Sharp-edged and deadly weapons, namely: Swords (including sword-sticks), daggers, bayonets, spears (including: lances and javelins), battle-axes, knives (including Kirpans and Khukries) and other such weapons with blades longer than 9” or wider than 2” other than those designed for domestic, agricultural, scientific or industrial purposes, steel batton, “Zipo” and other such weapons called ‘life preservers’, machinery for making arms, other than category II, and any other arms which the Central Government may notify under section 4 of the Act.”

7. Thus, the petitioner is facing the allegations for the offences under Sections 353, 290, 506 IPC and Section 25(1)(A) of the Indian Arms Act. Therefore, it is seen that the petitioner is facing allegations not only under the Arms Act, but also under IPC. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. However, it is deemed appropriate to dispense with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court provided, he is represented by a counsel on every date of hearing before the trial court and he shall appear before the trial court as and when his presence is required during