Telangana HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Proceedings Against Two for Abusing Policemen on Duty

 Hyderabad: Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a plumber and an electrician for abusing and assaulting on duty traffic police personnel. The judge dealt with a quash petition filed by Vatiikoti Saidulu and Burgula Yakaiah Yakoob. A criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioners by Rajendranagar traffic police station alleging that the petitioners were going to Aramghar from Mehdipatnam in a drunken condition. When they were stopped by traffic police, they abused the officials in filthy language and obstructed the traffic flow. It is also alleged that the petitioners created nuisance and obstructed the police. Basing on the complaint, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners. Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the allegations levelled against them do not constitute any offence as they were vague and baseless. He also argued that neither breathing analysis test was conducted nor was the motorcycle seized, which clearly showed that the allegations were vague. The additional public prosecutor opposed the quash petition stating that the allegations were serious in nature as they abused the police in uniform, therefore, the same required trial. After hearing the parties, the judge noted that from the scene of offence punchnama, it revealed that the petitioners, who were in a drunken state, came on a bike and abused the police and obstructed their duties. The judge noted that mere non-conduct of breathing analysis test and not seizing a motorcycle were not grounds for quashing the proceedings. The judge observed that since there are allegations against the petitioners, which requires full-fledged trial, quashing of proceedings at that stage, does not arise. The judge, accordingly, dismissed the criminal petition.

HC admits govt writ appeal on exercising RR Act provisions

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court entertained a writ appeal by the state government with regard to exercising the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, (RR Act). The government was in appeal against the order of the single judge, who faulted the government for not following the procedure prescribed under the RR Act. It was the case of the government that the writ petitioner Keshavarao Cheedella and others had fraudulently abused market forces and diverted custom-milled rice. According to the government, the rice had been transported to Kakinada port. The respondents contended that on account of the torrential rain in 2022-23, most of the paddy crop was damaged and they were supplied three times more paddy than their milling capacity for the 2022-23 Rabi. The respondent claimed that they had informed the government about their inability to store the drenched paddy and alleged that the government did not pay milling or transportation charges. After considering the submissions of the respondents and the state, a single judge of the Telangana High Court held that the respondent government did not follow the procedure laid down under the RR Act while issuing destraint order. The government challenged setting aside proceedings initiated by the government under the RR Act, by the order of the single judge.

Local criminal court to hear some persons arrested on rioting charges

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed that the local criminal court will hear the case of some of the persons arrested on charges of rioting in the city. J. Shobha and three others moved the High Court complaining that the police had yet again violated the Supreme Court judgment in ‘Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar’. To those who arrived late, the apex court had ruled that in offences with a sentence of imprisonment of less than seven years, the police in the course of investigation must necessarily issue a notice. The court rejected the automation of custody, pending investigation in such cases. In the present case, the petitioners complained that their kin were arrested on charges of rioting in connection with the recent temple incident. In all the offences the punishment was less than seven years. J. Prabhakar, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, argued that the attempt of the police to charge all and sundry in cases of rioting was against the principles of criminal law. Naresh Reddy, counsel for the petitioner, in his pleadings specifically pointed out that the action of police was in utter violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. He informed the court that his clients were in no way part of the rioting group that had pelted stones on RTC buses.