HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5133 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya Mukkera, learned counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 4 and Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.470 of 2023 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad.

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and

4 respectively in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 143, 147, 341 and 290 read with 149 of IPC.

4. On the complaint dated 19.01.2021 lodged by respondent No.2 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad, Police, Saifabad Police Station have registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2021 against the petitioners herein and others for the aforesaid offences.

5. In the complaint, the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are as follows:

i) Pursuant to the Call given by the All India Congress Committee (AICC), on 19.01.2021 without any permission the petitioners and others formed into an unlawful assembly at Assembly premises and taken out a rally by giving loud provocative speeches and slogans against the Government demanding to cancel the three (03) Farm Laws passed by the Central Government and to roll back the hike in prices of petrol and diesel and reached Telugu Thalli Junction passing through Ravindra Bharati and Iqbal Minar Junction.

ii) They reached Telugu Thalli Junction and sat down on the road causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, created nuisance on the road and gave provocative speeches to ‘lay seize’ the Raj Bhavan at Somajiguda, which is a Government House. Therefore, they have committed the aforesaid offences and accordingly requested the police to take necessary action against them for the aforesaid offences.

6. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the Police, Saifabad Police Station, registered the aforesaid crime.

7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1, police constables of the said police station as LWs.2 and 3, who said to be the eye-witnesses to the aforesaid incident apart from LW.4. LWs.5 and 6 are panch witnesses. LW.7 is the Official who issued FIR, while LWs.8 and 9 are the first and second Investigating Officers in the aforesaid crime.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the complaint dated 19.01.2021 lodged by respondent No.2 and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. LWs.2 and 3 are interested witnesses as they are police constables of the very same police station and, therefore, their statement cannot be taken into consideration. The Investigating Officer did not examine any person who faced traffic disturbance said to have caused on account of rally conducted by the petitioners and other accused. The Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet in a routine manner. Thus, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C.

cannot go on.

i) Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decisions in Charan Singh v. State of U.P., 1. (2004) 4 SCC 205, Prakash Karat v. State of Kerala, 2. 2022 SCC OnLine Ker. 5243, Mohamed Lathifulla v. State³, Athaulla Jokatte v. The State of Karnataka⁴ and Payal Shankar v.The State of Telangana, 5. Crl.P. No.8554 of 2024, decided on 26.11.2024

9. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that on account of the rally conducted by the petitioners and others, traffic disturbance was caused. The statements of LWs.1 to 4 attract the aforesaid offences and so also the contents of the complaint. The Investigating Officer having considered all the said aspects during the course of investigation laid the charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused. T