Telangana High Court
N. Uttam Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 18 August, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5133 OF 2025
ORDER:
Heard Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya Mukkera, learned counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 4 and Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.470 of 2023 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad.
3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 4 respectively in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 143, 147, 341 and 290 read with 149 of IPC.
4. On the complaint dated 19.01.2021 lodged by respondent No.2 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad, Police, Saifabad Police Station have registered a case 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 in Crime No.38 of 2021 against the petitioners herein and others for the aforesaid offences.
5. In the complaint, the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are as follows:
i) Pursuant to the Call given by the All India Congress Committee (AICC), on 19.01.2021 without any permission the petitioners and others formed into an unlawful assembly at Assembly premises and taken out a rally by giving loud provocative speeches and slogans against the Government demanding to cancel the three (03) Farm Laws passed by the Central Government and to roll back the hike in prices of petrol and diesel and reached Telugu Thalli Junction passing through Ravindra Bharati and Iqbal Minar Junction.
ii) They reached Telugu Thalli Junction and sat down on the road causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, created nuisance on the road and gave provocative speeches to 'lay seize' the Raj Bhavan at Somajiguda, which is a Government House.
Therefore, they have committed the aforesaid offences and accordingly requested the police to take necessary action against them for the aforesaid offences.
3
KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
6. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the Police, Saifabad Police Station, registered the aforesaid crime.
7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1, police constables of the said police station as LWs.2 and 3, who said to be the eye-witnesses to the aforesaid incident apart from LW.4. LWs.5 and 6 are panch witnesses. LW.7 is the Official who issued FIR, while LWs.8 and 9 are the first and second Investigating Officers in the aforesaid crime.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the complaint dated 19.01.2021 lodged by respondent No.2 and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. LWs.2 and 3 are interested witnesses as they are police constables of the very same police station and, therefore, their statement cannot be taken into consideration. The Investigating Officer did not examine any person who faced traffic disturbance said to have caused on account of rally conducted by the petitioners and other accused. The Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet in a routine manner. Thus, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. cannot go on.
4
KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
i) Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decisions in Charan Singh v. State of U.P. 1, Prakash Karat v. State of Kerala 2, Mohamed Lathifulla v. State 3, Athaulla Jokatte v. The State of Karnataka 4 and Payal Shankar v.The State of Telangana 5.
9. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that on account of the rally conducted by the petitioners and others, traffic disturbance was caused. The statements of LWs.1 to 4 attract the aforesaid offences and so also the contents of the complaint. The Investigating Officer having considered all the said aspects during the course of investigation laid the charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused. There is no error in it.
10. Respondent No.2 in his statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. reiterated the contents of the complaint dated 19.01.2021. LWs.2 and 3 police constables of the very same police station, also stated on the same lines. LW.4 is a businessman. He stated that he is the resident of Hafeez Complex, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and he is doing fish business in 1 . (2004) 4 SCC 205 2 . 2022 SCC OnLine Ker. 5243 3 . Crl,.O.P. No.16416 of 2021, decided on 20.09.2021 by Madras High Court 4 . Crl.P. No.6797 of 2022, decided on 17.04.2025 by Karnataka High Court 5 . Crl.P. No.8554 of 2024, decided on 26.11.2024 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 Ramnagar. On 18.01.2021 at about 11.30 A.M. while he was coming from Ramnagar, Musheerabad to Telugu Thalli Flyover, there were some Congress MPs. And MLAs, Ex. MLAs and others gathered in the Assembly premises. Accused Nos.1 to 5, 16 and other Ex. MLAs and MPs, volunteers as a legislature giving provocative lectures headed a rally. They are giving slogans against the Central Government approved three (03) Agricultural Acts demanding to cancel such Acts and also take back the hike in the prices of Petrol and Diesel with a high speed and sit across the road and for commuting disturbances to the traffic and giving provocative slogans. Thereafter, the police took them into custody.
11. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 141 of IPC deals with 'unlawful assembly' and the same is extracted as under:
"141. Unlawful assembly.- An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-
(1) To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or (2) To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (3) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (4) 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 (5) 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.
Explanation.- An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."
12. Section - 143 of IPC deals with punishment for the offence committed under Section - 141 of IPC. The same is extracted as under:
"143. Punishment.--Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
13. Section - 146 of IPC deals with 'rioting". The same is extracted as under:
"146. Rioting.-- Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting."
14. Section - 147 of IPC deals with 'punishment for rioting'. The same is extracted as under:
"147. Punishment for rioting.-- Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
15. Section - 340 of IPC deals with 'wrongful confinement". The same is extracted as under:
"340.Wrongful confinement.- whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person."
16. Section - 341 of IPC deals with 'punishment for wrongful restraint'. The same is extracted as under: 8
KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 "341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.-- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
17. Section - 290 of IPC deals with 'punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for'. The same is extracted as under:
"290. Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for.-- Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees."
18. Section - 149 of IPC deals with 'every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object'. The same is extracted as under:
"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.-- If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is apt to note that to attract the offence under Section - 141 of IPC, there should be the following ingredients:
(i) There must be an assembly of five or more persons;
(ii) The members of the assembly must have a common object;
(iii) The common object must be any one of the following five;
(a) to overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force, the Government or any public servant,
(b) to resist the execution of any law or legal process, or
(c) to commit mischief or criminal trespass or other offences,
(d) by criminal force or show of criminal force to take or obtain possession of any property or deprive enjoyment of a right of way or use of water or other incorporeal rights,
(e) by criminal force or show of criminal force to compel any other person to do what he is legally not bound to do or omit to do that which he is legally bound to do.10
KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
20. A reading of the Section indicates that every assembly of five or more persons by itself will not become an unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons will become unlawful only when they have a common object and the said object falls within the categories mentioned as first to fifth in Section - 141 of IPC. When the common object of the assembly does not fall within any of the five categories specified in Section - 141, even if the number of the assembly is more than five, the act alleged will not attract the offence of unlawful assembly. Thus the essence of the offence of unlawful assembly lies in the consensus of purpose of more than five persons to commit an act specified in Section - 141 of IPC.
21. It is apposite to notice that of the five categories in the provision, three of them have criminal force as a necessary ingredient. 'Force' is defined in Section - 349 of IPC, while 'criminal force' is defined in Section - 350 of IPC. The intentional use of force for committing an offence or for causing injury, fear or annoyance is an essential requirement of criminal force. The remaining two facets require resistance to the execution of law or 11 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 of legal process or the commission of the offence of mischief or criminal trespass.
22. The principle constituting the offence of unlawful assembly have been succinctly analyzed by the Apex Court in Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh6 and in Akthar Alam alias Aktarul Sheikh v. State of West Bengal7. Reference to the decision in Aravindan v. State of Kerala8 is also relevant. In Aravindan's case (Supra), the Kerala High Court observed that "the mere fact that an assembly consists of five or more persons is likely to disturb the public peace does not prove that the common object of the assembly is one of those enumerated in the Section. But there, Section - 151 of IPC may come in and it has been held that the common object must be an immediate one and not to be carried out at some future time.
23. As mentioned earlier, Section - 141 of IPC significantly uses the words 'criminal force' in the three facets of the provision. Thus, a protest or an assembly of persons without any criminal force or show of criminal force would not make the assembly 6 . AIR 1965 SC 202 7 . (2009) 7 SCC 415 8 . 1983 KLT 193 12 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 unlawful. An assembly of more than five persons gathered for a peaceful protest cannot fall within the term unlawful assembly. The right to protest peaceably is an essential ingredient of the fundamental right under Article - 19 (1) (a) and 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India. An assembly of persons without arms or without criminal force or without any intent to commit an offence can only be a lawful assembly, which is not prohibited. Such an assembly is a formation in the exercise of the right to freedom of every citizen guaranteed under Article - 19 (1) of the Constitution of India.
24. In this context, it is appropriate to observe that the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to form an assembly guaranteed under the Constitution will be a dead letter if every assembly is regarded as offensive conduct. The right to dissent and the freedom to air views contrary to the views of the Government is not an offensive conduct. In fact, the right to dissent is the core of every democratic establishment. The Constitutional Scheme of our Country embodies the salutary principle of the right to dissent. When the dissent is expressed without causing any harm or even a significant inconvenience, it 13 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 would be too puerile to proceed criminally against the dissenters. Merely because the dissent is not acceptable to the majority, that is not a reason to initiate criminal action unless the dissent was coupled with violent, disorderly or damaging conduct by any member of the assembly.
25. In Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In Re v. Commissioner of Police9, where the Apex Court had while upholding the right to dissent, directed the protests to be carried out only in designated areas. In the said decision, the Court was concerned with the indefinite and long periods of protests being held at Shaheen Bagh, causing absolute inconvenience to the public. The situation is different in the present case.
26. In Charan Singh1, the Apex Court while dealing with the offences under Sections - 149 and 141 of IPC, held as under:
"13. Coming to the others who were armed with double- barrelled guns and country-made pistols, the question is regarding applicability of Section 149 IPC. Section 149 IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person 9 . (2020) 10 SCC 439 14 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 liable unless there was a common object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set out in Section 141. Where common object of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section 149. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly. The only thing required is that he should have understood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any of the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141. The word "object" means the purpose or design and, in order to make it "common", it must be shared by all. In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression "in prosecution of common object" as appearing in Section 149 has to be strictly construed as equivalent to "in order to attain the common object". It 15 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter. Members of an unlawful assembly may have community of object up to a certain point beyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge, possessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the information at his command, but also according to the extent to which he shares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect of Section 149 IPC may be different on different members of the same assembly.
14. "Common object" is different from a "common intention" as it does not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view and their number is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that object. The "common object" of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the behaviour of the members at or near the 16 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 scene of the incident. It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful. Under the Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful. It is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is necessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at the outset. The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An assembly which, at its commencement or even for some time thereafter, is lawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words, it can develop during the course of incident at the spot eo instanti.
15. Section 149 IPC consists of two parts. The first part of the section means that the offence to be committed in prosecution of the common object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish the common object. In order that the offence may fall within the first part, the offence must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused was a member. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under Section 141, if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed and this is what is required in the second part of the section. The purpose for which the members of the assembly set out or desired to achieve is the object. If the object desired by all the members is the same, the 17 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 knowledge that that is the object which is being pursued is shared by all the members and they are in general agreement as to how it is to be achieved and that is now the common object of the assembly. An object is entertained in the human mind, and it being merely a mental attitude, no direct evidence can be available and, like intention, has generally to be gathered from the act which the person commits and the result therefrom. Though no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down under the circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries and behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident. The word "knew" used in the second branch of the section implies something more than a possibility and it cannot be made to bear the sense of "might have been known". Positive knowledge is necessary. When an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. That, however, does not make the converse proposition true; there may be cases which would come within the second part but not within the first part. The distinction between the two parts of Section 149 cannot be ignored or obliterated. In every case it would be an issue to be determined, whether the offence committed falls within the first part or it was an offence such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object and falls 18 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 within the second part. However, there may be cases which would be within the first part; but offences committed in prosecution of the common object would be generally, if not always, within the second part, namely, offences which the parties knew to be likely to be committed in the prosecution of the common object. (See Chikkarange Gowda v. State of Mysore [AIR 1956 SC 731 : 1956 Cri LJ 1365]."
27. In the light of the aforesaid principles, coming to the facts of the present case, as discussed above, in the complaint dated 19.01.2021 and in the statements of LWs.1 to 4, there is no mention that the petitioners and other accused assembled together with a common object to do the aforesaid acts. There is no criminal force alleged to have been used by the petitioners. The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein and other accused are that they formed into unlawful assembly at Assembly premises, raised slogans and tried to lay seize of Raj Bhavan. They were arrested at Telugu Thalli Statue itself. The other allegations made by respondent No.2 as stated by other witnesses, the petitioners and other accused sat on the road causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic creating nuisance on the road. The said fact was not spoken to by LW.4. There was protest by the petitioners against 19 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 the said Three Farm Laws and also hike in petrol and diesel prices. Admittedly, both the petitioners herein were sitting MLAs at the relevant point of time. The said protest was peaceful. There was no criminal intention or force by the petitioners. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein and the trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section - 143 of IPC against the petitioners herein.
28. To attract offence under Section - 146 of IPC, there should be force or violation is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly. In the present case, none of the witnesses stated about the common object and force or violation by the petitioners herein and other Members. The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein and other accused are that they have protested against three Farm Laws and hike in prices of Petrol and Diesel. Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section - 147 of IPC cannot go on as the contents of the complaint dated 19.01.2021 and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the said offence.
20
KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
29. To attract the offence under Section - 340 of IPC i.e., wrongful confinement, there should be wrongful restrainment of any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits. In the present case, there is no allegation of confinement, much less wrongful confinement. The contents of complaint dated 19.01.2021 and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the said wrongful confinement. Therefore, the proceedings in the said C.C. for the offence under Section - 341 of IPC cannot go on against the petitioners herein.
30. To attract the offence under Section - 290 of IPC, the act must qualify as a public nuisance as defined under Section - 268 of IPC. It means there must be something that causes annoyance, injury, or obstruction to the public or those who use a public space. In the present case, the contents of complaint dated 19.01.2021 and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the said nuisance, such as causing annoyance, injury, or obstruction to the public or those who use a public space etc. Though, it is alleged that on account of rally conducted by the petitioners and others, there was disturbance to the traffic etc. When such is the case, the 21 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 Investigating Officer should have examined some persons who alleged to have faced traffic disturbance on account of conducting of rally by the petitioners. The Investigating Officer did not do so. Therefore, the complaint dated 19.01.2021 and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of offence punishable under Section - 290 of IPC. Thus, the proceedings in the said C.C. for the offence under Section - 290 of IPC cannot go on against the petitioners herein.
31. To attract the offence under Section - 149 of IPC, there should be an existence of unlawful assembly and the commission of an offence by a member of that assembly and that the offence was committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly or was one that the members knew was likely to be committed. As already discussed above, there was no unlawful assembly as defined under Section - 141 of IPC. Thus, the contents of complaint as well as the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the said offence. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners herein for this offence are also liable to be quashed.
22
KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025
32. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 10, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section
- 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate 10 . (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 23 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act 24 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a 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."
The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.
33. In the present case, as discussed above, the contents of statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in C.C. No.470 of 2023 against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 and 4 is an abuse of process of law and they cannot go on. Thus, the proceedings in the said CC are liable to be quashed.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.470 of 2023 pending on 25 KL,J Crl.P. No.5133 of 2025 the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 and 4 alone.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 18th August, 2025 Mgr