Allowed

Sri. Bandi Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Aug 2025CRLP/7543/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of holding a public meeting at an IKP Centre violating COVID-19 guidelines faced charges under Sections 143 and 149 read with Section 188 IPC. Holding the complaint lacked ingredients of unlawful assembly and cognizance violated the bar on complaints for Section 188 offences, the High Court quashed all further proceedings against them.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Bandi Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

I\4ONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7543 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1 . Sri. Bandi Sanjay Kumar, S/o, Narsaiah, Aged about. 53 years, Occ. Honble Member of Lok-Sabha, Karimnagar Constituency, (Presently Minister of State Home Affairs of lndia) R/o. H. No. 2-10-'1525, Jyothinagar, Chaitanyapuri, Karimnagar, Telangana 505001 .

¶8

Naragoni Prashanth, S/o Saidulu, Aged about. 24 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H No. 8-346, Chandanapally village Nalgonda Mandal and District, Telangana.

¶9

Vonguri Rakhi,'S/o. Sathyam, Aged about. 31 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.35, Kanakadurga colony, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶10

ltharaj Saitulu6iddu, S/o. [/araiah, Aged about. 29 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 122, Padmavathi colony, Ramagiri, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶11

Ivlekala Anil Kumar, S/o. Narsimha, Aged about. 26 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Buddaram village, Nalgonda Mandal 86 District

¶12

Dubbaka Sai Kiran, S/o. Laxman. Aged about. 24 yearc, Occ. Student, R/o. Ashok Nagar, Old city, Nalgonda town and District, present at BJP office, Nalgonda town.

¶13

Kubham Surya, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about. 28 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Jangareddygudem village, Thipparthy Mandal, Nalgonda District. Present at beside TDP office, Boyawad, Nalgonda.

¶14

Gurram Venkatesharalu, S/o. Sathaiah, Aged about. 51 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Padmanagar Colony, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶15

Bandaru Prasad, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about. 51 years, occ. Business, R/o. Nalgonda Town and District

¶16

10-Kankanala Nagi Reddy, S/o. Anji Reddy, Aged about. 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Kathalgda, Nalgonda Town and District

¶17

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1,3 TO 11 AND

¶18

The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, Through PS Nalgonda Rural, Hyderabad.

¶19

Sri. Ahmed Shareef, S/o. Habeeb Shareef, Aged about. 53 years, Occ. ASI212 PS Nalgonda Rural R/o. Nalgonda Town and District.

¶20

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶21

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash all further proceedings in CC No. 32 o{ 2025 on the file of the Court OF TH[: Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad including appearance in the interest of justice, pending di:;posal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶22

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No 32 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad including appearance in the interest of justice. pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶24

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P Shashi Kiran ,Advocate for the Petitioner and fvlr. Dodla Arun Kumar. Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent No.'l .

¶25

The Court n"ade the following: ORDER:

¶26

IION'I]L[ SItI JUSTICE K. L,4KSHN,IAN (lRIN|tNAl. PEI'ITION No.75-l-3 OI' 2025

¶27

oRAt_ oRr)ER:

¶28

I lcard Mr'. P. Shashi Kiran. learne-d collnsel for thc Petitiorrers ancl Sri Dodla Arun Kumar. learncd z\ssistant PLrblic Prosecutor' appearing fbr l't respondcnt.

¶29

l.^'I'he present Criminal Petition is llled under Section - -528 ot' Bharatiy'a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 1033 (tbr short.^'BNSS') to quash thc 6rroceedings in C.C.No.ll ol2015 pending or1 thc tile ol'the Special .ludicial Magistrate of First Class fbr^'l-rial ol^('ases relatins to M.Ps and MLAs, Hydcrabad. The petilioners hcrcin arc Accused Nos.l. 3 to ll in the said C.C.No.i2 ol'1025.^'fhe offi:nces allec.ed against the petitioners herein are punishable under Seclions 143 and 188 read u,ith Section 149 of IPC.

¶30

As pcr the complaint dated l5.l 1.202 I of'2'"r respon<lent, thc allcgations lcveled against the petitioners hcrein are tlrat l'' lretitioner' along rvith the other petitioners on 15.II.202 I at I2 noon. rvithout lbllo*'ing guidelines issued by the State Governrnent u,ith regald to CIOVID- I 9, rvent to Arjalabavi IKP Centre, Nalgonda [)istrict and

¶31

¶32

e\anlincd thc paddr', spoke to the thrmers and conducted press rncct.

¶33

I-hus, the lret itir)r)crs havc r''iolated the Modcl of Cotlc^,rl Cloncluct

¶34

4- Durin!l the course ol- invcstigation, thc Invcstiuating Ol'licer rccorcled stateurcnts of 2"d respondent as L.W. I, 1..\1s.r to^'1 arc constables ancl Sub Inspector of' Policc, Nalgonda Rural I'olice Station. [-.\/.5 is the photographcr and also eyer^rvitness to the inciclent. On corrsiderirtion of thc said slaterncnts. tlrc Investigating olllccr laid clrargc shc-ct against the petitioners hercin.^'l'he sanlL' \as takcn on lrlt' r,iclc C.(1.No.35 ol- 2025. Petitioners lllecl the lrreserlt crirnirral I)etiti()n to rlLrash the procccdings in thc said⁽ .C .

¶35

In tlrc said CC, the of{-ences are under Sections I 43 and I 49 of II)(1. Sectiorr l-13 of IPC says that whoever is a rnember ol'an tunlarvfirl ass!'nrbl,. shall be punished with imprisorrrnent of' eithcr descriptiorr lirr rr term which may cxtend to six months, or with {ine, or^rr ith both

¶36

Scctiort l4l ol IPC dcals rvith unlawful asscnrblv ancl it is e\t r:rcted hclorr :-

¶37

l4l. [.lnlau,tirl assembly.-An assembly of five or morc^pcrsons is designatcd an^'-unlawt'ul assembly". if the common^obiect of^thc persons curnposing that assembly is-

¶38

First.-To overawe bl criminal tbrce, or show of criminal I'orce, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the l-egislature of any State, or an1, public servant in the ercrcise of thc la"r'f ul po*,er ol-such public scrvant; or

¶39

Sccond. To resist thc cxccution ol anv larv, or of an1, lcgal nr(^)ccss:or

¶40

'I hird.-To cornmit any mischiel' or criminal trespass- or otlrcr oll'ence: or

¶41

Fourth. By means ol'criminal force, or show of'crinrinal fbrcc. to anv person, to take or obtain possession of any propcrt'. o[ tL) deprive any person ofthe enjoyment of a right olwal'. or of thc Lrse ol rvater or othcr incorporeal right oi'which he is in possessi()n or cniovnrent. or to enforce any right or supposcd right: or

¶42

l:itih. Bv means of criminal f<rrce, or show of crinrinal tbrcc. to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do- or to omit to do '"vhat he is legally entitled to do.

¶43

I o prove the said otlbnces, there should bc crir-ninal lirrcc or

¶44

rcsisting the execution of any [aw, or of any legal process by thc pctitioncrs. Thc contents of the complaint dated I 5. I I .201 I of l"'r respondent aud statements of the witnesses recordcd Llndcr Section i(rl of Cr.P.C. [acks the ingredients of Sections l4l ollPC,.'I.hus, tlre prosecutior.r lailed to prove that the petitioners uscd criminal tbrce or obstl'Llctccl execution of any proceedings or of any lcgal proccss by thc petitioners herein.

-1

[t is relevant to discuss Section 188 ol IPC- and thc samc^is

¶49

e\tracted br'lorr':-

¶50

" ltl8.^{l)isohedicncc to ordcr duly promulgatedby public} scrlant. \'hoerer, knorling that. b1' an ordcr prornLrleatcd br a public se'rr ant lawt'ully enrpowered to promulgatc strch ordcr, he is directetl to abstain lirrn a certain act. or to take certain order uith ccltain property in his posscssion or under his nlanailemcnt. disobeys such dircction. shall. il such disoll.'dience causcs or tends to cause obstruction. ar.rnovancc or in-jLLlr. or risk of obstructioll. anno\ancc or injury. to lny pcrson larr tirlll erlplol'ed. bc punisl.red rvith sinrplc imprisonnrent lirr a tcrnr ivhich n'tirl elitcnd to onc nlonth or with fine u,hich ma), e\tL'n,l lo lrro hunclrcd rupecs. or rvith both; and if' such disobediencc' causes or trends to cause danger to human lit'e, hcalth or satl{r'. or caus!'s or tcnds to cause a riot or alfrav. sha]l be punishcd rvith imprisonmcnt of eithcr description lbr a term uhich rnar c\tcnd to six rnonths, or rvith [inc which nrav extend 1() onc thousand rupecs. or rrith both.

¶51

Explanation.-lt is not nccessary that the ollender should intencl to produce hann. or contemplate his disobediencc as likclr,to prodtrce harm. It is sultcient that he knows o1'the orcler uhich he disobevs, and that his disobcdience produces. or is Iikeh to proclrrce. lrarnr.

¶52

Illustration .{n order is prornulgated by a putrlic servant larafirlly cnrpowcred to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shatl not pass down a certain street: A knouingll disobeys the ordcr. and thereby causes danger ofriot. A hus conrnritted the oUcnce deflned in this section."

¶53

¶54

It is relevant to refer the principle laid down by the I'1igh Court o['Andhra l)r'adesh in N.T'. Rama I{ao v. The State of A.P.. rep. bv I'ublic I'rosecutorr, Thota Chantlra Sekhar r,.^-I'hc St:rtc of Andhra l'radcsh. through S.H.O., P.S. F,luru ILural, West (]odavari l)istrictr antl Statc of Haryana v. Bhajan l-al-r, r he rein the procedurc to bc flollo*.cd in the cases ir-rvolved^.,i,ith thc otll'nce Lrncler 188 ol IPC.

¶55

ln N.'l-. Rama Rao (supra) it is hetd as tbllow,s:-

¶56

6 [:r'cn il the allegation that the petitioncr conducted public rrrcctings at tluee road .iunctions contrary to thc pernrissiol accordcr-l lbr conducting of a public mecting only at one specitied place is true- such a direction under Section 30 of thc Police .,\ct1861 could have bcen given only by the Superintcndent or the Assistant Supcrintendent of Police of the District but not b1,an1 ol ttreir sutrordinatos. I suoh a pemrission is grantcd undcr Section i() ofthe l)olice Act, l86l and is violated, Section 195 (l)^(a) ot C'ode o1'Criurinal ['roccdurc mandates that the complaint in this rcgard lias to be n.racle by the public servant .concerned or somc othcr person to whom such a public servant is administrativell' subordiuate to enable any Court to take cogni:.ance of an olltnce undcr Scction 188 ol'Code of Criminal Procedure. [n thc present case. lhc chargc shcet was filed by the Sub [nspector of Police. u{ro could not have bcen the authority to grant permission lbr the public meeting and thercfore, the complaint/charge sheet is in

¶57

I Criminal Pctition No.5l2-l of2009. decided on 17.09.2009 : Crinrinal Petition No.15248 of20l(r. decidcd on 26.10.2016 '1locllSupp. I SCC li5

¶58

()

¶59

violation ot'the nrandatorv provision o1'Section 195( I xa) of Code of'⁽ rirninrl l)roccdure.

¶60

Ihirt lnirrt. tlrc oft-encc allegcd lo huve been comn]ittcd under Scction lll.i o1'thc Indian l)enal^('ode Lrl the^petitioners und othcrs is olrvrousl] in consequt'nce to the altcged offence under Section 188 of tnilian I'cnal^(lodc and is rtot art independcnt ot'thc same. livcn irthcruise. tho conduct ol' public meeting at three road junctiors or obstructiou to thc tratllc oould not have bcen considercd as causing any danger or iniury to any person. In so fhr as the r)bslruction in anv puhlic rvav is concerncd.^r,vhich can also bc cor creti b1 Section lfl.i o['thc lndiarr Penal Oode. thc chargc shcct citcs onlt onc rvitncss to s1;cak about the traftic ianr causcd b1, thc lond shos. Rut- r,r'hc-n the conduct ollhe public nrceting at least al onc place has been permitted and if thc gathering for that public nrcoting rcsulted in arnf inconvenicnce b1 rvay ol obstructins tlre traliic, the same cannot bc considered to be rvith ncccssarv guiltl mcns rea to constnre thc existence of an olfence purrislrable under Indian Pcnal^('odc. IJnder the circllmstanccs, nonc oI thc oltenccs allegcd can be said to have anv rca-sonable basis arrcl in anv vicr". thc conrplainl/charge sheet being in violation ol'Section 195⁽ I ) (a) of Clodc ol'Criminal Procedure, has ro lail.

¶61

As the conrplaint has fhilcd cluc to its unsustainability, the proccedings in thcir entiretl have to tail. though the lst accused alone apprutched this Court by u'av of this Criminal Petirion."

¶62

Ir-r^'Ihota Chandra Sekhar (supra) relving on various

¶63

judgrnents inciucline N.T. Rama Rao (supra) and thc guidelines laid dor,in by thc Ilorr'blt- Suprcnrc Court irr Bhajan Lal lsupra), it rvas held as follori s:-

¶64

¶65

".....(iuideline No.6. rvhich says that u,here therc is an cxprcss legal bar cngralled in any of thc provisions of the^('ode or the concernctl Acr (undcr rihiclr a crintinal procccding is instituted) to thc institLrtion and continuance ol'thc proceedings andior u,hcre lherc is rr specilic prorision in thc Code or thc conccrned Actprolidinl cllicacious rcmcdy to rcdress the grievancc of the par1r,. a ['arned Single Judgt' of I Iigh Courl of Judicature at Hvderabad tbl thc Statcs ol Tclangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proce'edinus in the said C.C. b1, exercising power under Section 481 of'('r.t'-f'. [t lirrther held that the proceedings shall not be continued duc rc tcchnical det'ect of obtaining prior pormission undcr Scction - I55 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the conrplaint liled bv V.lt.O. and it is against thc purport of Section - 195 ( 1) (a) olCr.l'.C."

¶66

I l. In order to convict any person for commission ol offerrce punishablc Lrnder Scction - 188 IPC, the Court has to satisfy itself that thc accuscd had not onlr' r,iolated the order promulgated by a public scrYant. hLrt also the accuscd had actual knowledge ol issuancc ol such ()rclcr. Tlle sanle is lacking in the present casc.

¶67

il. Irr State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal/'thc Apcx Court has also laid clor,vn certtrin guide lines/parameters fbr exercise of power of tl-ris Court undcr Scction 482 Cr.l'}.C. arrd the sarne are extraclcd lie re in:-

¶68

I 1992 Supp ( I) SC('-r15

¶69

¶70

"{ l) Wherc thc allegations nrade in the llrst inforn'ration rcport or the complaint. cven il- thcy arc takcu at their taco^valLre atrd acccpted in thcir entiretl' (lD rx)t prima lacic ctrnstitrtte an1 of)'ence or ntake out a r asc aqainst the accuscd.

¶71

(l ) urlicrc thc allegations in thc lirst inlbnnation rcport an(l othcr nralerials. il anl'- acconrpanling the FIII do rol disclosc a coqnizable oftencc. _justil-r'ingr an in,'cstigation b1' policc ol trcers urldcr Section I -5ir( | ) ol' the C odc cxccpt undcr an orclcr ol a Magistratr- rr ithin the pun,ies o1'Scctiorr l5-5(l) ol'the Code.

¶72

(l) \ihcre thc uncontrovertcd irllcgations madc in thc FIR or cornplaint and lhe evidcnce collccted in support ol the same do rrot disckrsc tlrc cornmissiou ol an1' olti'ncc and rtrakc out u casc against tltc- accuscrl.

¶73

(.1) \'bcrc thc allegirtions in thc l'tR do nol corrstirtrte a counizablc of'f'encc hut cor.lstitutc onll a noncoqnizablc oll'cncc. no investigation is pemrittetl b1 a p,rlice otlicer u,ithout an order ol'a Magistratc as conternplatcd under Scction 155(2) of thc Codc.

¶74

(5 r Whcre thc allcqations madc in thc FIR or complaint arc so alrsurd and ir rerentll inrprobable on ihe basis ol' rvhich no prudsnt pcrson can evcr rcach a iust conclusion that thcre is sLrllicient ground Ibr proccecling against thc accused.

¶75

(6) Whcle thcre is an crprcss Icgal bar engralicd irr any o[ the pror isior.rs ol thc^('ode or thc nct conccn]ed (untlcr u'hich a criminrl procceding is institutcd) to thc institution anrl continuance of thc procecdings antlr'or rvhere therc is a specilic provision in thc Code rrr Act conccrncd- providing elficacious redrcss tbr thc grier ance of the aggrier ed partl'.

¶76

(7 t Whcre a criminal procecding is maniltstll, attcnded uith mala lidc andior u,hcre the proceeding is maliciousl_v ir.rstituted u ith an ulterior motive tbr !\r(aking |engeance on thc accused and uith a .ieu to sprtc hirn duc to private and personal grudge."

¶77

The said prin(:iplc \/as also reitcrated in subsequent -iudgmcnts.

¶78

()

¶79

li. In tlre tight of' the afirresaid discussion, this Criminal Petition is alloived ancl the proceedirrgs in C.C. No.32 ol 2025 pencling on thc lllc oltlrc Special .ludicial Magistratc ol'First Class lbr 'l'rial ol' Cascs relating to MPs and M[-As , I lyderabad are hereby quashcd against thc petitioners he'rein - accused Nos. 1,3 to I I

¶80

As a sequel, u.risccllaneous petitions, il any, pending in the

¶81

criminrl petition shall stancl closcd

¶82

SDi. T. SRINIVASA REDDY AS TANT REGISTRAR

¶83

//TRUE COPY//

¶84

TION OFFICER

¶85

To,