The court held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed when prima facie cognizable offences are disclosed and factual disputes exist, but directed the investigating officer to strictly follow BNSS procedures and Arnesh Kumar guidelines regarding arrests.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.102 of 2026 of Hussaini Alam Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 129 , 130, 132, 189, 190, 191(2), 121(2), 221, 351(2), 352, 270, 45 and 49 of BNS.

2. The case arises out of Crime No.102 of 2026 registered at Hussainialam Police Station based on a complaint lodged by a police constable, who was on bandobust duty on 04.04.2026 during an encroachment removal drive conducted by GHMC officials from Lad Bazar to Puranapool. It is alleged that Accused No.1 along with the petitioner/A-2 and others formed an unlawful assembly, obstructed the officials in discharge of their duties, created nuisance, and instigated others. During the incident, the complainant was allegedly manhandled, pushed, and sustained a fracture to his right hand. It is further alleged that the accused abused the officials in filthy language and interfered with the lawful proceedings. Based on the complaint, offences under various provisions of the BNS were registered and investigation was taken up, during which statements of witnesses were recorded and video evidence was collected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated without any prima facie material and the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner is a social worker who visited the place only upon receiving information from the public and did not obstruct any official duty. The counsel further argued that the alleged offences are either not made out from the contents of the complaint or are non-cognizable in nature, and the registration of the case was done without proper application of mind. It is also contended that continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and hence the FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition contending that the allegations disclose a clear prima facie case against the petitioner, who actively participated in the unlawful assembly and supported the main accused in obstructing public servants. It is submitted that during investigation, statements of witnesses and video evidence have substantiated the involvement of the petitioner. The prosecution further contended that the petitioner, along with others, interfered with official duties and created a law and order problem at the spot. Hence, it is argued that the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed as investigation is still in progress.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court observes that the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the matter involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Further, as evident from the remand order dated 05.04.2026, the learned Magistrate has already examined the material on record and found that the ingredients of the aggravated offence under Section 121(2) of the BNS are not made out, and accordingly altered the same to Section 121(1) BNS, thereby indicating that even at the initial stage, the more serious penal provision invoked by the police is not prima facie attracted.

7. However, since the complaint and material collected during investigation disclose the basic ingredients of other offences and the investigation is still in progress, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings. At the same time, considering that the offences ar