IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.16259 OF 2024

23^rd February, 2026 Between:

B.Santosh Kumar …Petitioner/Accused AND Mohammed Alam and another …Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS, 2023”) seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 184 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Challa, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2/State.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in C.C. No. 184 of 2022 and is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 05.09.2021 at about 06:00 PM, while the de facto complainant and his staff were on patrolling duty, a car bearing registration No. TS 10 EL 8856 was found parked in a “No Parking Zone.” When the officer took a photograph of the vehicle, the petitioner, being the driver of the said car, allegedly approached the officers, questioned the act of photographing the vehicle, threatened to videograph the officials, and made statements to the effect of questioning how they would continue in their employment. It is alleged that by such conduct, he caused obstruction and disturbance in the discharge of their official duties.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC. It is contended that the statements of the witnesses disclose, at best, a verbal altercation, and that there was neither assault nor use of criminal force. Mere questioning or videographing public officials, without any physical act or gesture amounting to assault or criminal force, would not attract Section 353 IPC. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses are staff members accompanying the de facto complainant, and despite the incident having allegedly occurred on a public road, no independent witnesses have been cited, rendering the prosecution version inherently doubtful. Continuation of the proceedings, therefore, would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

4.2. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Dhananjay v. Cabinet Secretary and Others (SLP (Crl.) No. 5905 of 2022, decided on 21.10.2024), wherein it was held that mere shouting, verbal threats, or protest against officials, in the absence of assault or use of criminal force, would not constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC. On the strength of the said authority, intervention of this Court is sought.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the accused obstructed the de facto complainant and his staff while they were discharging official duties, and hence initiation of proceedings under Section 353 IPC was justified. However, he fairly submits that while considering a similar situation, Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. and Another (2025:INSC:20), has clarified the distinction between offences under Sections 353 and 186 IPC, holding that mere verbal altercation, shouting, or obstruction without assault or criminal force may, at best, attract Section 186 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence. In view of the said legal position, appropriate orders are sought.

6. I have perused the material available on record.

7. The gravamen of the allegation against the petitioner is that he questioned the act of photographing his vehicle, threatened to videograph the officials, and made statements challenging their authority to perform their duties. There is no allegation of physical contact, use of force, or any overt act suggestive of assault.

8. Section 353 IPC reads as follows:

“Whoever assaul