Criminal Petitioner challenged the conviction for assault under Section 353 IPC, alleging no criminal force or assault occurred when recording a video of a police constable on duty. The High Court held the actions fell within the definition of force and dismissed the petition.
Criminal Petition No. 7080 of 2022 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32sl ]
IN THE HIGH COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
IVIONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
cRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7080 OF 2022
Between:
Safdar Ali Miza, S/o. Shaukat Ali Mirza,Aged about26 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R:./o. Flat No.203, AlpineTowers, Kavadiguda,Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds ofCriminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to Quash theproceedings in C.C.No.178012020on the file of the ll AJCJ-cum-X Addl. MetropolitanMagistrate atKukatpally,for the offence punishable U/s.353 of lPC.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2022
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying thatin the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the HighCourt may be pleased to stay of all furtherproceedings in C.C.No.178Ol2O2oon the file of the ll AJCJ-cum-X Addl. Metropolitanlvlagistrateat Kukatpally, for the offence punishable U/s.353 of lPC.
This Petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing the Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing thearguments ofSri B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner andthe Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE H(,NOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUR]}IIDI'R
CR MINAL PETITION No.7O8O OF 202:Z
qRDE_I!
This Crir rir-ral Petition is filed under ile<:tion 4ll2 of tl-re Code of Clrimi Lal Procedure, 1973 (for short '()..I,.C,) b1, the petitionerT'Ac cr s,:d to quash the proceedings zr11a inst hirn in C.C.No.1780 o 2020 pending on the file of It Addit.onal Junior Civil Judge cr nr-X Additional Metropolitirn I\4t, gis tratr: at I(ukatpalh'. T .e offence alleged against hinr is rrr-de: Section 353 ol the Inrlir n Penal Code.
2 . Hearcl le nled counsel for the petitioner a nd learned Additionai Pul li: Prosecutor for the resporrd:r t State. Perused the rec rrd
t
2
petitioner further followed the 2nd respondent while he was on duty and started taking video of the 2"d respondent. For the said reason of causing obstruction to his duties, the 2"d respondent filed criminal complaint against this petitioner.
t tg$l cFc,.L.l.z1
-)
his car, four:d ha1 thc same does not amou-tt [() Sjoction 353 of the IndiarL Pr:r: rl Code
B. Section i 4') of the Indian Penal Code dr:fines force wherein a pet's, n is said to be use force to another f he causes motion or anv :LLange of motion affecting the ol_lre -,s sense of feeling or cessa ion of motion.
4
1 1 . Prima facie, the acts committed by the petitioner fall within the definition of force under Section 349 and 350 of the Indian Penal Code.
L2. In the said circumstances, I do not hnd any grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
l
(
I
I
,\
NIisce'llrL reous applications pending, if anr., sl-rall stand
closed
//TRUE COPY'
SD/.B.C1IA NDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANI REGISTRAR -'=J)
SI:CI-ION OFFICER
2 Oie CC lo SR E, RAJESHWARREDDY Advocate [OPUC
BSK
E
\
, I
HIGH COURT
DATED:27102ti2023
,.., .,,:
/,i
t.:
.i
? [ J]il ?$Z]
ORDER
CRLP.No.70t0 ot2022
CRIMINAL P :-rlTlON lSDISMISSED
o
*'F
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the act of following a police constable and recording a video while he was on duty amounts to using criminal force under Sections 350 and 351 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (assault or use of criminal force on a public servant) are made out in the present facts.
Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Romu Rao v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶29
P.Romru Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Safdar Ali Miza
The State of Telangana
Sri K. Naresh Kumar
Justice K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
