1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.539 of 2021, on the file of learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 290, 186, 147 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr.Md. Habeeb Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.02.2020, at 15.00 hours, while Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff were performing bandobust duty at Azizia Mosque, at about 14:15 hours, after completion of afternoon prayer, under the leadership of the accused, some people gathered as an unlawful assembly in front of the Mosque, Mehdipatnam, without obtaining Police permission. The said persons actively participated in a Dharna against NRC and CAA. They raised slogans and displayed placards in protest, creating public nuisance and traffic congestion, leading to inconvenience to the general public. Basing on the said incident, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.64 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Court concerned. The same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C.No.539 of 2021.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do with the offences alleged. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner and the ingredients of offences alleged against him are not made out. He further submits that on the basis of statements of witnesses, who are Police Officials, the Investigating Officer conducted table investigation and filed charge sheet in a routine manner. He further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 had approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.1824 of 2022 for seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.539 of 2021 and this Court has allowed the said Criminal Petition on 26.03.2025 against them. The very same allegations are levelled against the petitioner and petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged against them and hence, prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 186 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.

                  186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

                  195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance-

                  (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

                  (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or

                  (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate...”

7. Upon perusal of the charge sheet, it reveals that the petitioner is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 290, 186, 147 read with 149 of IPC. According to Section 195 of Cr.P.C., under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC, a complaint in writing should be given by a concerned public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. As per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., a "complaint" means an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with the intention of initiating action under the Code, that a person, known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

8. In the instant case, the complaint was lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who is not a competent person. Further, except filing a case implicating the petitioner for the offences under the aforesaid sections, no independent witnesses were examined and no material was placed to prove the said allegations against the petitioner. As per Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code can only be prosecuted on the basis of a complaint which is filed by a competent public servant into the Court as stated above.

9. The allegations against the petitioner is that he along with other accused formed a unlawful assembly and raised slogans and created public nuisance, traffic congestion. In Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir ((2016) 15 SCC 525), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Article 19 (1) (a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this Country, and thus, this provision ensures that the petitioner could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive language.

10. In the present case, there are no specific allegations that this petitioner used offensive language and there is no evidence to show that due to unlawful assembly, nuisance is caused to the public and that they have obstructed free flow of traffic or obstructed the public or the authorities from discharging their duties.

11. Coming to the other offences, when one of the offence is falling under sections 172 to 188 of IPC and the same cannot be taken of cognizance by the Court as per section 195 of Cr.P.C., the consequent alleged offences in the aforesaid sections cannot be given roof in the same crime and therefore cannot be maintained. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to note that the Honourable Supreme Court of India in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy (AIR 1981 SC 1417), at Paragraph No.8, it is held as follows:

                  “8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld”.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above decisions, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.539 of 2021 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.