IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD * * *

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 524 OF 2024 Between:

Mohammed Obaid Ur Rahman.

……Petitioner/Accused No.1 VERSUS State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another.

………Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 15.04.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes ________________

N. TUKARAMJI, J * THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI + CRIMINAL PETITION No.524 12390 OF 2024 % 15.04.2026 # Between:

Mohammed Obaid Ur Rahman.

……Petitioner/Accused No.1 VERSUS VERSUS State of Telangana, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another.

Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner : M/s. S.M. Rizwan Akhtar Counsel for the petitioner.

^Counsel for respondents : Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1.

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred

1. Criminal Application No. 3111 of 2018, decided on 18.02.2019

2. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.524 OF 2024

15.04.2026 Between:

Mohammed Obaid Ur Rahman …Petitioner/Accused No.1 AND The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another …Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 7817 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

2. Heard M/s. S.M. Rizwan Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1/State.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.09.2022 at about 00:10 hours, the de facto complainant (respondent No. 2), while on patrolling duty at Palton ‘X’ Road, noticed a gathering wherein certain individuals were celebrating a birthday. It is alleged that the petitioner cut a cake using a sword (long knife) and thereafter danced while wielding the said weapon, accompanied by loud music. It is further alleged that such acts caused obstruction to the free flow of traffic and amounted to public nuisance. Based on the said allegations, Crime No. 365 of 2022 was registered at Police Station Chaderghat, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed.

Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been instituted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire substratum of the prosecution rests upon the alleged use of a sword during a private celebration. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. In particular, there is no specific material to demonstrate (i) any actual obstruction to a particular individual so as to constitute an offence under Section 341 IPC, or (ii) a degree of annoyance or injury to the public at large sufficient to attract Section

290 IPC.

5. Further, it is contended that the invocation of Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act is wholly misconceived in the absence of a valid notification issued under Section 4 of the Arms Act, 1959, classifying the alleged weapon (sword/long knife) as a regulated arm within the specified area. In the absence of such statutory notification, the very foundation for prosecution under the Arms Act is legally unsustainable.

Hence, continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, i