Telangana High Court
Kova Laxman vs State Of Telangana on 26 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7619 OF 2025
Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Vimal Varma Vasi
Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State.
ORDER:
The petitioner prays for quashing of C.C.No.394 of 2023 for the offences under sections 143 and 341 read with section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate under Prohibition Act (Excise Court)-cum-Special Court, Hyderabad.
2. The offences emanate from a Complaint dated 15.10.2019 given by one M.Pavan Kumar to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nereducherla P.S. with regard to an incident which took place on 15.10.2019 at 7:15 P.M. and relates to the "BJP contesting candidate" Kota Rama Rao who along with "BJP President" one Laxman and other leaders held a road show on the main road in Dirshincherla Village causing a hold up of traffic for thirty minutes. The de facto complainant requested the Police to take legal action against Kota Rama Rao as per the Model Code of conduct of the Election Commission of India.
2
3. Pursuant to the Complaint dated 15.10.2019, an FIR in Crime No.184 of 2019 was registered on the file of the Nereducharla, P.S. on the same day i.e., on 15.10.2019 against Kota Rama Rao and others. The contents of the Complaint/Statement of Complaint as recorded in the FIR further allege violation of Moral Code of Conduct Rules (MCC Rules). Subsequently, a Chargesheet was filed against Kota Rama Rao and Kova Laxman reiterating the incident which took place on 15.10.2019 at 07:15 P.M. hours at Dirshincherla Village, Nereducherla Mandal.
4. The specific charge against Kota Rama Rao (A.1.) and Kova Laxman (A.2.) is that they gathered some other party members and formed an unlawful assembly at Dirshincherla village for conducting a road show and obstructing free flow of public movement for about thirty minutes which caused difficulty to people. The accused persons were charged with the offences punishable under sections 143 and 341 read with section 34 of the IPC in C.C.No.394 of 2023 for participating in the said road show.
5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner (A.2) and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 3 appearing for the respondent-State. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant is not represented.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed the relevant provisions of law in respect of the charges as well as the documents in support of his submissions. According to Senior Counsel, the Criminal Case was filed for political and collateral reasons and that none of the sections mentioned in the Chargesheet are applicable to the facts of the case.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/State of Telangana places the Complaint dated 15.10.2019 as well as the evidence given by L.Ws.1-6 to urge that the petitioner was correctly charged under the sections mentioned in the Chargesheet. The Additional Public Prosecutor relies on the evidence given by the Videographer (L.W.4) and the independent witnesses (L.Ws.5 and 6) in support of his submissions. It is further submitted that Clause (10) of the Permission No.C/1634/2019 dated 13.10.2019 granted to the petitioner for conducting a rally/procession during the 89 Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency Bye Elections, 2019 clearly mentions that the petitioner would be responsible for any aggravated law and order situation consequent to the 4 rally/procession. The primary submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor is that the number of persons who were present in the rally is a matter of crime and that the petitioner can raise the grounds raised in the present Criminal Petition during the Trial. The Additional Public Prosecutor accordingly urges that the Criminal Petition should be dismissed and the questions raised should be adjudicated in the Trial.
8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considered the relevant provisions of the IPC and the decisions cited on behalf of the parties.
9. The Court proposes to deal with the sections within the template of the facts as recorded in the Chargesheet.
10. Section 141 of the IPC defines 'unlawful assembly' as "an assembly of five or more persons, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is' -
• To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or 5 • To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or • To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or • By means of criminal force or show of criminal force to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or • By means of criminal force or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
The points stated above form the substance of the offence of 'unlawful assembly' under section 141 of the IPC.
11. The constituents of an offence under section 141 of the IPC - Unlawful Assembly - has already been detailed above. The 6 section clearly states that it must be an assembly of five or more persons with the persons having a common object. In the present case, the Chargesheet mentions only two accused persons of which the petitioner is the accused No.2. The number of accused persons is not known since the Chargesheet does not mention the total number of persons who formed the alleged unlawful assembly on the designated day and time of the alleged incident. The only statement in this regard in the Chargesheet is that "...on 15.10.2019 at about 19.15 hours, the BJP contested candidate Kota RamaRao along with BJP President Laxman (wrongly named as Lamman) and other leaders were campaigning in the Dirshincherla Village...". This lack of specificity with regard to the number of persons who formed the unlawful assembly is further aggravated by the Permission granted by the Returning Officer, 89- Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency on 13.10.2019 which grant permission for conducting the rally procession 15.10.2019 from 9.30 A.M. to 8.00 P.M. for '150 Members Supporters'.
12. In Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab 1, the Supreme Court held that section 141 makes it clear that it is only where five or more persons constitute an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born 1 AIR 1963 SC 174 7 subject to the other requirements of the section with regard to the common object of the persons composing that assembly.
13. Hence, the fundamental requirement of 'an assembly of five or more persons with a common object' for such an assembly to be as an 'Unlawful Assembly' is ex facie missing in this case. In any event, the permission granted to the petitioner for holding the road- show on 15.10.2019 would automatically take away the 'unlawful' component of the assembly.
14. Section 143 of the IPC awards punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
15. Section 341 of the IPC awards punishment for wrongful restraint with imprisonment for a term extending to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
16. Section 339 defines 'wrongful restraint' as the act of voluntarily obstructing any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. The provision carves out an exception wherein if a private way over land or water is obstructed by a person who in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, it 8 would not amount to wrongful restraint. The illustration to section 339 clarifies the definition of wrongful restraint by providing that when a person obstructs a path along which another has a right to pass without believing in good faith that he has a right to obstruct such path thereby preventing the other person from passing, wrongfully restrains the other person.
17. The complaint which forms the source of the Chargesheet is dated 15.10.2019. The Complaint similarly lacks particulars with respect to the charge under section 341 of the IPC. The relevant paragraph of the Complaint being set out as under:
"On 15-10-2019 at 7.15 PM, the BJP Contesting Candidate along with President Laxman and leaders have done Road Show in the village of main road at Dirsencherla around 30 minutes. The Traffic is held up the road user of traveller people suffered. It comes to violation of MCC."
18. In the facts of the present case, the permission given to the petitioner for the rally to be held on 15.10.2019 would dilute the very basis of the charge of wrongful restraint. Further, the Chargesheet fails to explain the application of the charge of section 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint) to the facts of the case. The Chargesheet only states that the accused persons were campaigning in Dirshincherla Village which led to the general 9 public being caught in heavy traffic. In fact, the exact words used in the Chargesheet are testimony to the lack of particulars with regard to the offence of wrongful restraint as no witnesses who were restricted in any manner from proceeding in any direction, were examined to infer commission of the offence punishable under section 341 of IPC.
19. From both the Complaint as well as the Chargesheet, it is clear that the alleged offence only speaks of the accused' holding up traffic for thirty minutes on 15.10.2019 at 7.15 P.M. causing difficulty to the people travelling on that road by reason of the traffic building up. Apart from the Chargesheet and the Complaint lacking these essential details, it is also not understandable as to how the persons travelling on the road can be restrained, as understood in sections 339 and 341 of the IPC, on the open road by reason of traffic congestion. The Chargesheet in any case suffers from several ambiguities which almost render the Chargesheet incomprehensible.
20. Section 34 of the IPC relates to a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all which would make each such person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
10
21. Section 34 of the IPC contemplates the criminal act being committed by several persons pursuant to a 'common intention' i.e., each of those persons must be party to the common intention which constitutes the criminal act. The constituents of section 34 has been dealt with in several cases which, inter alia, have held that if common intention is proved but no overt act is attributed to the individual accused, section 34 of the IPC will be attracted as it essentially involves vicarious liability. However, if participation of the accused in the crime is proved but common intention is absent, section 34 cannot be invoked. In other words, Section 34 requires a pre-arranged plan and pre-supposes prior concert which means that there must be prior meeting of minds; Suresh Sankharam Nangare v. State of Maharashtra 2.
22. In the present case, the facts as stated in the Chargesheet disclose that the accused persons, including the petitioner, held a road-show which caused heavy traffic build up resulting in people being stuck in traffic for thirty minutes. 'Common intention' requires a pre-arranged plan and action in pursuance of that object/plan. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that in this case, the pre-arranged plan of the accused was to obstruct 2 2012 (9) JT 116 11 the traffic and cause suffering to travellers for thirty minutes on the day of the road show.
23. Courts have given a strict interpretation to Section 149 of the IPC - Offence committed by member of Unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object. It is well settled that Section 149 of the IPC prescribes vicarious criminal liability for all members of an unlawful assembly where an offence is committed by any member of such unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common object of that assembly. One of the essential ingredients of Section 149 is that the offence ought to have been committed by any member of an unlawful assembly and Section 141 makes it clear that it is only where five or more persons constituted an assembly that an unlawful assembly is born, provided of course, where the persons composing that assembly act with common object: Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab 3.
24. The requirement of Charge-Sheets being filed with sufficient details was observed by the Supreme Court in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P. 4. The Supreme Court held that the Investigating Officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the Charge-sheet so that the Court can clearly understand which crime 3 AIR 1963 SC 174 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726 12 has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the Chargesheet, for each of the accused persons.
25. Instances of the vague statements made in the Chargesheet are reproduced below.
"...on 15.10.2019 at about 19.15 hours, the BJP contested candidate Kota Rama Rao along with BJP President Laxman (wrongly named as Lamman) and other leaders were campaigning in the Dirshincherla village and they were held road show for 30 minutes at main road, Dirshincherla village by violating the election rules. Which is violated the MCC rules in this moment the people was suffering with heavy traffic. Hence, he was requested to take necessary action against BJP contested candidate Kota Rama Rao as per ECI Rules."
...
...Later, visited the scene of offence which is situated at Dirshincherla village and examined the scene of offence minutely, there is no incriminating evidence has not found at the scene of offence...
...
The Lw-9 addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Huzuranagar Revenue division with a request to furnish the allotment order copy of the complainant Lw-1 who allotted the MCC team-IV in charge in view of Huzurnagar assembly by elections-2019 and Road show campaigning permission... ...
Accordingly, on 12.06.2022 the Lw-1 was came to PS and appeared before Lw-6 and submitted his explanation. In which he stated that, presently photo and video graph evidence has not available about the offence and also not available of my 13 appointment order of the MCC team-IV in charge at Huzurnagar assembly by elections-2019.
...
...
...on 15.10.2019 at about 19.15 hours at Dirshincherla village at mean time the accused A-1 & A-2 were gathered with other party members formed Unlawful assembly at Dirshincherla village conducting road show by abstracting the traffic and free flow of public moments at about 30 minutes, in which the peoples are faced struggles..."
26. The above instances can be said to be fatal to the particulars of the offences under which the petitioner has been charged. In essence, the Chargesheet does not contain any particulars, as per the dicta in Sharif Ahmed's case (supra), of the individual offences committed by the accused persons including the petitioner (A-2).
27. It is also to be noted that the Criminal Complaint filed against the petitioner and the pursuant Chargesheet appears to be actuated by malice. Even though speculative, the intent of harassment, if not malice, would be evident from the Chargesheet itself. The contents of the Chargesheet make it clear that the petitioner may have been booked under the offences of unlawful assembly and wrongful restraint by reason of the petitioner belonging to a rival political party. The Chargesheet itself bears testimony to the political rivalry since the factum of the petitioner being the 'President' of that political party has been mentioned 14 several times in the Chargesheet. The Chargesheet also mentions that the accused No.1 seeks to contest the election from that particular village as a candidate from the said political party. The malice is also evident from the attending facts such as the evidence produced by the witnesses on behalf of the State being virtual copies of each other. The translated versions of the evidence given on the part of LW.2, LW.3 and LW.4 are identical. Likewise the evidence given by LW.5 and LW.6 are also identical.
28. The fact of malice was one of the considerations before the Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 5, where the Supreme Court listed out certain situations where the inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. could be exercised. One of the situations mentioned in Bhajan Lal is where the Criminal Proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
29. Therefore, this Court accepts the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that the Criminal Case was instituted with 5 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 15 malicious intent by reason of the fact that the petitioner/accused No.1 is a member of the rival political party in the State.
30. An accused should not be compelled to face Trial when the contents of the Chargesheet do not disclose the commission of the offence on the face of it. In such case, the Court should see whether the allegations, prima facie, establish the offences under which the accused has been charged. Apart from the Chargesheet not fulfilling the requirement of the offences in the present case, the Chargesheet is also replete with vague allegations which have been extracted above. Vague allegations do not satisfy the test of the petitioner being asked to stand Trial since that would be abuse of process of law.
31. Inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised where the allegations in the Chargesheet/FIR/Complaint on its face do not constitute the offence or where the Charges are not supported by evidence. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and can be exercised to prevent such abuse or to secure the ends of justice.
32. The facts in the present case satisfy the above conditions. The Chargesheet does not disclose any offence committed by the 16 petitioner/ accused No.2, cognizable or otherwise, hence no purpose would be served if the Trial were to continue against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.394 of 2023.
33. Crl.P.No.7619 of 2025 is accordingly allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.394 of 2023 for the offences under sections 143 and 341 read with section 34 of the IPC on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate under Prohibition Act (Excise Court)-cum-Special Court to try the offences having punishment less than 3 years relating to elected MPs and MLAs at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad.
All connected applications are disposed of. Interim orders, if any, are vacated.
_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J 26th September, 2025.
TJMR/BMS