HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8507 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. R. Prasanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 1^st respondent.

2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2024 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are Accused Nos.1 to 28, 30 to 45 in the said C.C.No.272 of 2024. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are punishable under Sections 143, 353, 188, 341, 504 read with 149 IPC.

3. On the complaint dated 09.03.2020 lodged by the 2^nd respondent, the Police, Nakrekal Police Station, Nalgonda District, has registered a case in Cr.No.34 of 2020 against the petitioners herein and other accused. In the said complaint, 2^nd respondent has alleged that the petitioners and other accused formed into an unlawful assembly, put DJ (Disc Jockey) songs, obstructed the traffic and danced on the road, without obtaining prior permission. When L.Ws.1 and 2 questioned their acts, A.1 abused L.Ws.1 and 2 in filthy language. Therefore, 2^nd respondent requested the police, Nakrekal, to take action against the petitioners.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the complainant/2^nd respondent as L.W.1, Police Constable of the said Police Station as L.W.2, fruit vendor as L.W.3, Sarpanch of Mangalapally Village as L.W.4, panch witnesses as L.Ws.5 and 6 and Investigating Officer as L.W.7.

5. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.272 of 2024. Petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.

6. As discussed supra, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 353, 188, 341, 504 read with 149 IPC. It is the specific contention of the petitioners herein that the contents of charge sheet lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The said provisions are extracted below:-

353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public

servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.—Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—

Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

7. To attract the offence under Section 504 of IPC, there should be intention to insult thereby which cause provocation to any person intending or knowing it to likely such provocation will cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In the present case, even if the allegations made by 2^nd respondent in the complaint dated 09.03.2020 are considered to be true, the same are lacking the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of IPC. There is no allegation of intentional insult to provoke breach to public peace etc.

Thus, the