It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutort while deating

Order

Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, leamed counsel representing Mr. Patte Nageswara Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. I - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), to quash the proceedings in C'C' No'268 of 2024 pending on the file

of the Speciat Judiciat Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (L,xcise Court), Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid C.C. The ot-fences alleged against him are under Sections l7l-C & l7l-F rcacl u,ith l8ti and 506 of IPC and Section - 123 (2) of the Represcntation of Peopte Act, 1951 (for short'R.P' Act')'

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No'2, MCC Nodat Olficcr, Kanralapur (MPDO, Kamalapur), Sub-Inspector of Police. Kamalapur Policc Station, registered a case in Crime 2 KLJ Crl.P. No.l66 of2025 No.247 of 2023 against the petitioner,for the aforesaid offences. As per the report given by respondent No.2, dated 29.11.2023 to the police, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are as follows: i. The petitioner herein i! the contesting candidate for 3l Huzurabad Assembly Constituency on behalf of Bharathiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) Party for the General Elections held inthe year 2023. ii. On 28.11.2023 between 11.00 A.M. and 12.00 noon, rhe petitioner violated the Model Code of Conducr (MCC) by saying " Meeru Vote Veyakunte Maa Mugguru Shavalanu Chudandi ani esandharbanga Teliajesthunnanu, Meeru Vote vesi lead isthe Vijayayatraku Vostha, ledante Maa Shava Yatraku Meeru Randi". (i.e., If you don't vote, rhen be prepared [o see the dead bodies of three of us. I am telling you this in that context. If you vote and give us a lead, r,ve u,ill begin a victory procession; otherwise, you have to comc to our funeral procession). iii. After veri$ing the Video record submitted by VST Team on

28.11.2023, respondent No.2 gave the aforesaid report with i,f, ) KL,J Crl.P. No.t66 of2025 the Police concemed to take action against the petitioner on the ground that the aloresaid statements would amount to violation of MCC.

5. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the police, Kamalapur Police Station, registered the aforesaid crime. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW.1, Mr. K. Veeraswamy, Head Constabte-642 of the very same Police Station as LW.2 as he is the circumstantial witness and Member of MCC Team; Mr. Abdul Wahed, Senior Assistant in Panchayat Raj Department, Huzurabad as LW.3 as he the eye witness who submitted the Video Report and spoke the facts of the case; Mr. Ande Ravinder and Mr. Tanguturi Anand as LWs.4 and 5, the cye-witnesses, and LWs.6 and 7 are parcft witnesscs

6. Atier cornplctior.r of investigation, the Investigating Officer taid clrarge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid charges and leamed Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner vide C.C. No.i14 ol 2024 by leamed Special Judicial Magistrate of [:irst Class, I lanamkonda. Later it was transferred to the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases r \ 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.l66 of2025 under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad and the aforesaid C.C. was re-numbered as C.C. No.268 of 2024. Perusal of the statement of L.W.l would reveal that he hm reiterated the contents of the complaint, dated 29.11.2023, while LWs.2 to 5 reiterated what they have stated in their statements mad€ under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C.

7. It is apt to note that Section - 188 of IPC which deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant' and the same is cxtracted as under "1E8. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant la'*fiilly empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed !o abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such dircction, shall, if srch disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple impris- onment lor a term which may extend to one month or with ftne which may extend to two hundred rupees, or rvith both; and il such disobedierrce causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with r 5 KL,J Crl.P. No. t66 of2025 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-lt is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is suffrcient that he knows ofthe order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. lllustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfirlly empowered to promulgat€ such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A l<nowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."

8. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutort while deating with the offences under Sections - 188 and 281 of IPC, leamed Single Judge held as under: "5) Even if the allegation ttrat the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded tbr conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section l0 ol the Police Act. 186l could have been given only by the Superinicndeut or the Assistant r. Criminal Petition No.5323 of2009. decided on 17.09.2009 6 KL,I Crl.P. No.l66 of2025 { .\ Superintendent ol Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the police Act, lg6l and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 1gg ofCode of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(l)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedurc. 6) That apan, rhe ofTence alleged to have been commifted under Section 283 of the Indian penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section lgg of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road .iunctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so lar as the obstnrction in any public uay is concemed. rvhich can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one rvitness to speak about the traffic jam ? KL,J Crl.P. No.l66 ot2025 caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way ol obstructing the traffic. the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an oflence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable' basis and in any view, the complainVcharge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its un- sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the lst accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition."

9. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The Statc of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Raor and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal-r, more particutarly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to dle institution and

2. Criminal Petition No.15248 of20l6, decided on 26-10.2016 '. 1teez1 supp. I scc 335 !.. 8 KLJ Crl.P. No.l66 0f2025 continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concemed Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States df Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C' It further held that the proceedings shalt not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr'P'C'

10. In view of the above, the Investigating Officer did not foltow the procedure taid down under Section - 155 of Cr.P.C' Further, contents of charge sheet including statements of LWs.l to 5 lack the ingredients ol Section - 188 of IPC. Therefore, the proceedings in the said C.C. for the olfence under Section - 188 of IPC are liabte to be quashcd against the petitioner herein .

11. As far as oflerrces under Sections - l71C and l71F of IPC are concemed, Section lTlC deals with 'undue influence at elections', while l7l F deats q'ith punishment for an offence under Section-l7lC. thesame are extracted below: t't ., f

1. 9 KL,J Crl.P. No 166 of 2025 "12C. Undue influence at elections. - (l)Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the fiee exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election. (2)Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section ( l), whoever- (a) threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or (b) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spirituat censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right ofsuch candidate or voter. within the meaning of sub-section (l). (3)A declaration of public policy or a promise of pubtic action, or the mere exercise ofa legal right rvithout intcnt to interfere with an electoral right, sha not be decrned to be interference within the meaning of this sectiou." "171F. Punishment for unduc influencc or personation at an election- Whoever cornmits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonmenr oi either description for a term which may extend to onc year or with fine, or with both." 10 KI-J Crl.P.'No.155 of 2025

12. Keeping the language empl6yed in Section - l71C in mind, perusal of the report dated 29 .l I .2023 given by respondent No.2 would reveal that the petitioner has made specific statements as extracted above. Prima facie, the statements made by the petitioner are very specific which would certainly create undue influence at elections amounting to threaten any voter or any person. Be that as it may, whether the petitioner made such statement giving rise a threat to the voter etc., is a triable issue which has to be decided only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot decide the same in a petition filed under Section - 528 of the BNSS

13. Similarly, the offence undcr Section - 506 ofIPC deals with 'punishment for criminal intimidation'. [n view of the specific allegation levelled against the petitioner in the manner stated above violating the Model Code of Conduct and in view of the discussion made while dealing with the oft-ences under Sections - lTlC and 171F, the proceedings undcr Scction - 506 of I?C also cannot be quashed at this stage. KL.J Crl.P. No. 166 of 2025

14. As far as Section - 123 (2) of R'P' Act is concemed' Section - I 23 deals with 'corrupt practices' and sub-section (2) says rcgarding 'bribery'. The same is extrLted as below: "123. CorruPt Practices.- The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:- (l) "Bribery", that is to saY- (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part oF the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agen! with the free exercise of any electoral right: Provided that- (a) without prejudice to the generatity of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who- (i) threatens any candidate or any elector' or atry person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community; or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he' or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object o[ divine displeasure or spiritual censure' shall be deemed to interfere with the lree exercise of t2 KLJ Crl.Pi No. t66 of2025 the electoral right of. such candidare or elector within the meaning of this clause; (b) a declaration ofpublic policy, or a promise ofpublic action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within rhe meaning of this clause. (3) xxxxx....', I ) \

15. perusal of statements of LWs. I to S, prima facre, would support the contents of report given by LW. I to the police. Even the contents of charge sheet would also prima facre make out the ingredients of the aforesaid offence. Whether the starement made by the petitioner wourd have impact on the voter and it amounrs to an undue influence etc., are all triable issucs which have to be decided only after full_fledged rrial, bur nor in a petition filed under Section - 52g of the BNSS.

16. In apetition filed under Secion _ 52g of the BNSS. this Court cannot conduct mini_trial and cannot consider the genuinity ol the statements of the witnesses recorded undcr Section _ I 6 I of Cr.P.C. Further, the Court in a petition filed undcr Section _ 52g of, thc BNSS is not required to see which particurar offencc is made @ry r3 KL.J Crl.l'. No.l66 of 2025 out, it has to see whether the gravamen of allegations disclose commission ol- art offence. t7. In Somjeet Mallick ,. Sttte of Jharkhanda the Apex Court held as lollows a "15. Before we oroceed to test the correctness of thc inlDusned order. we must bear in mind thet at thc statre of decidin whether a criminal D roceedin g or FIR. as the case ma be. is to be quashed at the thrcshold or not. the alleeations in the FIR or thc police rcoort or the complaint. includins the tion or ino ulrv. matcrials collected durin E ltrv as lhe case mav be. ere to be taken at their face valuc so as to determine whether a orima facie case for investisation or D roceedins against thq accused, as thc case maY be. is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage. t6. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute providcs otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingrcdionts. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact rhich may be inferred from the act in question as rvell as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of tlte accusetl. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite aking possession of the truck on hire, has lailed to pay hire charges for months together, rvhilc making false promises for its payment, a prima fhcic case. reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require invcstigation. [n such circumstances, if the FIR is quashcd at the very inception, it would be nothing short ofan ct rvhich thwarts a legitimate investigation.

17. Ir is trile law that FIR is not an encvclorraedia of all im Dutations. Therefore. to test $,hcther an FIR discloses a commission oI ' (20:l) to sct ::z -: '! t4 KL.J Crl.P. ].,1o. t56 of2O25 cosnizable offence what is to be looked at is not anv omrss ion in the accusations but the sravamen of the accusations contained therein to lind out whether Drima facie. some cognizable offence has been committed or trot. At this stace. the court is not ific offence required to ascertain 8s to which s has been committed.

18. It is onlv after ,investieation. at the time of framins charee. when materials collec(ed durine investisation are before the court. the court has to draw an ooinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that if satisfied. the court mav discharse the accused. Thus. when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the Dart of the accused which. if suDoorted bv materials, would disclose commission of a cosnizable offence. investisation should noa be thwarted bv ouashi ns the FIR." I 8. In Bhajan Lal3, the Apex Court cautioned that p()\\ cr o I quashing should be exercised very sparingll artd eircutttspceti{)lr and that too in the rarest of rear cascs. Whilc evrntirrirtr: .r cornplaint. quashing of which is sought, Court cantlot clllbarl\ trl)('n an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or oth€rw'ise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain gu idelines/parameters I()r cxcrcisc ol'powers undcr Section - 482 ol Cr.['C-. rrhiclt ate :rs ru n clc r: t5 KLJ Crl.l'. No.166 of2025 "( I ) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima'facie constitute any olfence or make out a case against the accused. (2\ Where the allegations in the hrst information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cogrlizable o ffe nce, justifr ing an investigation by police olficers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the comurission of any offence and make out a case agairut the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitu(e a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order ol a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ofthe Code. '1 l6 KLJ Crl.P.-No. t66 of 2O2i (5) Where the allegations made in tlre FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing effrcacious redress for the grievance ofthe aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite hirn due to private and personal grudge." The said principte was also reiterated by the Apex Court in carena of decisions

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid downjn..the aforesaid decisions, the present Criminal petition is alioyed in part quashing rhe proceedings against the petitioner t7 KLJ Crl.P. No.l66 of2025 herein in C.C. No.268 of 2024 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad for the offeilce under Section - 188 of IPC alone. However, the proceedings in C.C. No.268 of 2024 shall go on in respect ofother offences i.e., Sections - 17l-C, 171-F, 506 of IPC and Section - 123 (2) of R.P. Act. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Crimina[ Petition shalI stand closed. SD'- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSITANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// T SECTION OFFICER '.! to'.,. Hanamkonda -n" spr. Judiciar First class Magistrate, Excise court, Nampally, Hyderabad

2. The lVAddl. Junior Civiil;dge-Ium-Judicial First Class Magistrate' 3. il" Si;iiliouse officer, KamalapurP S''.Hanamkonda i. o"" cEt" sRl r v RAMANA RAo Advocate [QPUCI 5. Two ccs to sri parr. ruig$ili'"R"';' PUBII-C'PRosi:cuToR' High court 6. Two CD CoPies at Hyderabad (OUT) VSM'PSL (* HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ( gi THE S (J - * 1/ JUr 2p.5 l--'t t' -( .1 ORDER CRLP.No.166 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION at' l+t- 4 v 2.)