CRLP/16120/2026 of Aman Ullah Shareef Vs The State of Telangana, on 6 October 2026

1. The State of Telangana, Through Hussaini Alam P.S. Hyderabad, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad "'Respondent

2. Kum,G,Prryanka, occ.sub lnspector of Police Hussainialam Police Statton, Hyderabad. ...RespondenUDefacto-Complainant Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lr/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the criminal Proceedings in charge sheet as against the Petitioners/Accused No.2, 4 and 6 in c,c No.52B of 2024 pending on the file of chief lVletropolitan tvlagrstrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioners/Arccused No.2. 4 and 6 in Charge Sheet in C.C No 528 o1'2024 pending on the file o1 Honourable Chief Metropolrtan [Vlagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the ltrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C Harr Preeth, Advocate for the Petitioners and the tVlr Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor :n behalf of the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following: ORDER

- HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.1612O of2026 (CNR.No. HBHCO I 0674922o.261 DATE: 06.1O.2026 Between ; Aman Ullah Shareef and two others . Petitioners/ accused Nos.2, 4 & 6 AND 'lhe State of Telangana and another ...Respondents :ORD ER: This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.2, 4 and 6 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'the BNSS'), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.528 ot 2024 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in obstructed .. the the present crime. The petitioners have neither No.2 nor caused any duties of respondent - incor-rvenience to the public. He further submitted that disputes arose betrl-een the Congress independent candidates ancl the aclive members of the MIM party during the polling conducted at the polling statjon I connection with the Telangana State Legisllrtive Election 202.1. Tine allegations levelled against the petitioners ztre absolutely vague and devoid of specific particulars Mere causing of inconvenience to the public does not attract the ingredie nts of Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "lPC'). In support of his contention, he relied upon the principle laid dou'n by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.Subbarayudu v' State of Andhra Pradeshl.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are, speciltc allegations levelled in the complaint. Whether the all,:gations made in the complaint are true or not hav': to be decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the pror:eedings'

5. Ha\.ing considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the pt:titioners that they interfered rvith the process of voting at the pr>l1ing station, except alleging that the petitioners and other accused a:oused themselves two groups and quarreled by creating public t 1996 cri D 1472 (AP)

.- nuisance. The said allegation would not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in C.Subbarayudu (supra) held that mere causing of inconvenience to the public would not attract the ingredients of Section 160 of the IPC. Hence, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 160 and 171(C) of the IPC are not attracted against the petitroners.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the iaw governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal2, wherein the Court illustratively catalogued the categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations prima facie do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala Iides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Guided by these principles, and considering that the allegations in the present case do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

7. For the foregoing reasons and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to invoke the ' t992 Supp ( 1) SCC 335

- To, Jurisdiction of this court under Section 528 of the BI\ISS to quash the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos 2, '1 and 6

8. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allou ed and the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos 2, 4 and 6 in C.C).No.528 of 2024 on the fi1e of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Na:npaily, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed' Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed' SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chief Metropolitan tr/lagistrate at Nampally' Hyderabad

2. The Station House Officer, Hussatnialam Police Station Hyderabad District'

3. T,rvo ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri C Hari Preeth, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD CoPies LiGNF: a

HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012026 51 erE q' u \1$$ .I o.. z( r rlF

ORDER

CRLP.No.16120 of 2026 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION r \t \ ! /