THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.673 of 2025 against the petitioner-accused No.1 on the file of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Shadnagar, for the offences under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.

2. Heard Mr.Madanu Naresh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has never assaulted any public servant and that he never obstructed their official duties. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and that the complaint itself shows that it was filed with delay, wherein it is stated that the alleged incident has occurred on 06.03.2021, but it is filed on 08.03.2021 and the cause for the delay also is not explained, which itself shows that it is a concocted case against the petitioners. He further submitted that in Manik Taneja and another v. State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 it was held that force or assault must be made out to attract the

ingredients of offence under Section 353 IPC. He further submitted that the allegations so far levelled against the petitioner is that he removed the mask of an officer, which does not come under Section 353 or 323 IPC and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the delay cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings and that the statements of LWs.3 to 5 clearly point out that the offences under Sections 353 and 323 IPC get attracted and she therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. A perusal of the record discloses that the allegations levelled against the petitioner clearly point out the prima facie case under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The point of delay is a triable issue. The statements of LWs.3 and 5 further point out that the petitioner went to the MRO office, Nandigama on 06.03.2021 for filing a petition regarding ROR Act and requested to accept his petition and arrange for the acknowledgement, then the officials explained about the policy decision taken by the Government of Telangana while repealing the old Records of Rights Act and introducing the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, that they do not have the right to accept the petition, then the petitioner started abusing the public servants by using unparliamentarily language and also started recording in his mobile phone without taking prior permission, and started arguing with them in filthy language and when the Tahsilder came out of her chamber and enquired about the matter, the petitioner abused in front of her and pulled the mask of Naib Tahsildar. It is further disclosed that the petitioner has referred to an incident of Ex.Tahsildar Smt. Ch. Vijaya Reddy, Abdullpaurmet Mandal and threatened that he would do the same with Tahsildar Office staff, Nandigama Mandal also. Thus, the allegations and the statements of the witnesses point out the offences levelled against the petitioner.

7. In Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 8 SCC 244, the accused were convicted by the trial court and on an appeal to the High Court, the High Court has dismissed the appeal and when the matter reached the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that:

“Having considered the oral evidence and the medical evidence, we are constrained to conclude that the prosecution has not established that the appellant has assaulted or used criminal force against the trap party. In

fact, what transpires is that when the appellant was apprehended there appears to have been an attempt by the appellant to wriggle out and jostling and pushing appears to have happened, in the process of the appellant trying to extricate himself from the arrest. None of the ingredients of assault or criminal force have been attracted.”

8. In the said case, the t