Shaik Sajid @ Sajju Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shaik Sajid @ Sajju Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No.516 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagtial, Jagtial District, quashed; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings pending against the petitioners in CC.No.516 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagtial, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 read with 149 IPC, ought to be quashed pursuant to this Criminal Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS (with reference to Section 482 CrPC). +1 more

Court's answer

In the present case there were no allegations that the petitioners used offensive language, and there was no evidence that the unlawful assembly caused nuisance to the public, obstructed the free flow of traffic, or obstructed the public or the authorities from discharging their duties.

Ratio / Principle

Continuation of proceedings against these petitioners is not tenable and the proceedings in CC.No.516 of 2020 are liable to be quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Smt Justice K. Sujana), 28-02-2025: Criminal Petition No.CRLP.2858 of 2025, filed under Section 528 BNSS (with reference to Section 482 CrPC) by eight accused petitioners, sought quashal of proceedings in CC.No.516 of 2020 (I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jagtial, Jagtial District) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341 read with 149 IPC, arising from a suo motu FIR in which the respondent police acted as complainant, the alleged conduct being formation of an unlawful assembly staging a dharna with flexies demanding justice for a rape victim. Held, relying on Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir [(2016) 15 SCC 525 - decoded from an OCR-illegible footnote, to be verified before citing]: per the precedent, Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech permits citizens to raise slogans albeit peacefully and in an orderly manner without offensive language; in the present case there were no allegations that the petitioners used offensive language and no evidence of nuisance to the public, obstruction of free flow of traffic, or obstruction of the public or authorities from discharging their duties; continuation of proceedings was therefore not tenable. Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

[³³⁸⁵¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K, SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2858 OF 2025

Between:

'l . Shaik Sajid @ Sajju, S/o Shaik Imam, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.4 -5-21 5: i 1 l A, lslampu ra, Jagtial, Jagtial District.^(A-1 )

Mohammed Shafi, Sio Mohammed Bashu, Aged about^{40 years, Occ.Fruit} Business, R/o. HNo.7-7-170, Mukarrampura, Jagtial, Jagtial District.^(A-2)

Mohammed lrfan, S/o Mohammed Abdut Nawab,^{Aged 36 years,Occupation.} Plumber, R/o. H-No. 6-2-300/A, Hussainipura, Karimnagar, Telangana State. (A-3)

Mohammed Sofiuddin, S/o Rafiuddin, Aged about 36^{years, Occ. Carpenter,} R/o. Gunj Street, Gunj Mahalla, Jagtial, Jagtial District.^(A-5)

Mohammed Ashwak Baig, S/o Mohammaed^{lsmail Baig, Agedabout28} years, Occ. Daily Wager, R/o. HNo.5-5-108. Gunj Mahela. Farhan Masjid, Jagtial, Jagtial District. (4-6)

Shaik Akheel Ahmed, S/o Ahmed, Aged about 43^{years, Occ. Hotel, R/o.} lslampura Street, Jagtial, Jagtial District.^(A-B)

Shaik Javid, Sio Shaik lmam, Aged about 53^years, Occ.^{Hotel, R/o.HNo.} 4-4-11 15, lslampura, Jagtial, Jagtial District.^(A-9)

Mohammed lshaq Baig, S/o Mohammaed^{lsmail Baig, Aged about 39 years,} Occ. Daily Wager, R/o. HNo.5-5-108, Gunj Mahela, Farhan^{Masjid, Jagtial,} Jagtial District.^(A-1 0)

...Petitioners/Accused No.1-3, 4-6 and 8-10

AND

1 The State of Telangana, Through S.H.O, P.S. Jagtial^{Town,Repby its Public} Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

z R Prakash, Sio Not Known, Aged about not known, Occ.^{lnspector of Police,} R/o. lnspector of Police, P.S Jagtial Town, Mobile No.9440793'136,^Jagtial, Jagtial District.

...Respondents/De-facto Complainant

7

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c R/w 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal F"iition, in" Hig-h court may be preased-to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in c.c.No.516 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Lu-aicia'i First class H,r"gi"iot" at Jagtial, Jagtial District, for the offences punishabte U/s.143,34.1 r/w 149;f lpc.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2 025

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c R/w 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal F"iitioi, it" High court may be preased to stay ail further proceedings against tne peiitioners including appearance of the petitioners/Accused ruo,J t -a and 4-6 and g-10 herein in c.c.No.516 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Judicial First ciass Magistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal^petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate for the petitioners and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'l and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.28S8 of 2O2S

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 52g Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSSJ to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No.S16 of 2O2O on the file of the I Additional JDCL FC Magistrate, at Jagtial, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishpble under Sections 143,341 read with 149 of IpC.

Heard Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public prosecutor for respondent - State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police, being the complainant, have registered a suo moto case against the innocent persons, with allegations that are vague and general, and without aly material evidence to show that they have committed an offence. He contended that there is a delay in registering the FIR, which was not explained by the respondent police, and that the copy of the FIR was not dispatched to the concerned Court within the stipulated time,

2

indicating malafide intention on the part of the respondent police. He averred that the entire investigation was done with a claldestine motive to target specific individuals, and that the respondent police have implicated the petitioners with a view to accomplish their pre-determined objective, and that the provisions of Sections 143, 341, and 149 of the IPC are not attracted to the case, and that the petitioners have been implicated intentionally to suppress their democratic rights. Therefore, he prayed this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners by allowing this Criminal Petition.

On the other hand, iearned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that on 79-06-20|A, between 18:30-18:45 hours, a group of individuals, including Shaik Sajid and Mohammed Shafi, allegedly gathered at Ambedkar Statue in front of RDO's Office, Jagtial, and formed an unlawful assembly, causing nuisance in the public place by staging a Dharna protest and exhibiting flexies demanding justice for a rape victim, as such, a suo moto case was registered on

t

3

(

I

I

d

2-O6-2olafor^{the offencesas alleged' Therefore'he prayed} this^{Courtto dismiss the criminal petition'}

Having^{regardto the rivalsubmissions and the material} placed^{on record'the allegationsagainst the petitionersare} that^{theyformedinto unlawfulassembly and raised slogans} demanding^{justice for a rape victim'The learned counsel for} petitioners^{relied on the judgment of Anita Thakur vs'} Governaent^{of Jammu aud Kashmirlwherein the Hon'ble} Supreme^{Court observedthat Article 19(1)(a)confers freedom} of^{speech to the citizens of this counlry and' thus' this} provision^{ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan ' albeit} in a^{peacefuland orderly manner' without using offensive} language'^{In the present case' there are no allegationsthat} these^{petitioners used offensivelanguage and there is no} evidence^{to show that due to unlawful assembly' nuisanceis} caused^{to the public and that they have obstructedfree flow of} traffrc^{or obstructed the public or the authoritiesfrom} discharglng^{their duties' Hence'continuationof proceedings} against^{these petitionersis not tenable and the same is liable} to be^quashed'

'^{zot6ts scc sz5}

4

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition^{is allowed andthe} proceedings against the petitioners in CC.No.5l6 of^2O2Oorr the file of the I Additional^{JDCL FC Magistrate, at Jagtial'} Jagtial District, are hereby^quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, if^{any, pending shall stand}

closed.

Sd/. K AMMAJI ASSIST,ANT^REGISTRAR

\

/ffRUE COPY//

A E:CTION OFFICER

I

ll

To

The I Additional^{Judicial First class Magistrateat Jagtial'Jagtial District} i. fn" St"tion^{House Officer, Jagtial Town Police Station' Jagtial}

i;" ccs^{to the public prosecutor, High courtfor the stateof Telangana} at Hyderabad [OUT]

One'CC to^{Sri bnaik-Muhammed Abed, Advocate [OPUC]}

Two CD^CoPies

ADKPR

w

"\

\

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810212025

ORDER

CRLP.No.2858 of 2025

\ s I
( ){ € \JA
o
(-)
16 APB 206
oz
.<br>t t
5A'I c co

ALLOWING THE CRLP

q-
\6 l+ \aK