HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4317 of 2009 Dated 21-10-2010 Between: B.Vijayalakshmi and others. …Petitioners. And: The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4317 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 6/A.1 to A.6 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 504, 143 and 290 I.P.C. in C.C.No.257 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Wanaparthy. 2. The petitioners are office bearers of a society called Urban Mahila Development society. They were espousing a cause of a woman victim who was allegedly harassed by her husband. It is alleged that the police were taking the side of the husband instead of supporting the harassed woman. Therefore, this Mahila society took up the cause and it is alleged that they staged a Rastha Roko agitation in front of Wanaparthy Town Police Station. It is further alleged that in spite of the Sub-Inspector of Police asking the agitating Mahila society, they did not discontinue the Rastha Roko causing inconvenience to the passersby. On reading of F.I.R. and Charge Sheet in this case, I do not find any ingredients/statutory facts attracting the provisions of Sections 353, 504 and 143 I.P.C. There is no allegation of any of the accused using criminal force or assaulting any Police Officer during the course of agitation. Therefore, Section 353 I.P.C. is wholly inapplicable to the facts of this case. Secondly, intention of the agitating members was to support the victim woman who was harassed by her husband and whose case was not properly dealt by the police. Their intention was not to commit any offences as listed out in Section 141 I.P.C. Therefore, I do not find any unlawful assembly as such at the scene of offence. The accused are only staging a protest which is a democratic way of agitating the cause taken up by them. Therefore, Section 143 I.P.C. is also inapplicable to the facts of this case. Thirdly, there was no criminal intimidation at all by any of the accused much less with an intention to provoke breach of piece. Thus Section 504 I.P.C. is also inapplicable herein. But in so far as offences punishable under Sections 341 and 290 I.P.C. are concerned, those two offences are attracted in any agitation involving Rastha Roko. It is for the trial Court to come to a conclusion basing on the evidence to be let in by both the parties on that aspect. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.257 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Wanaparthy in so far as the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 143 I.P.C. are concerned, and the Criminal Petition is partly dismissed in so far as the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 290 I.P.C. are concerned. __________________________________________ Justice SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated 21-10-2010. Dvs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4317 of 2009 Dated 21-10-2010