The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the entire records relating to CR No. 12 of 2023, pending on the file of Xll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, at Kukatpally, and quash the same in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 2OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in FIR No. 12 ot 2023 on the file of Xll addl. Chief Metropolitan lvlagistrate at Kukatpally pending disposal of the quash petition in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. Niloufer Afghan representing Sri Mohammad Adnan ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Mrs. S. Madhavi Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the'Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION N o.549 ot 2023 EDRo R This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in F.l.R.No.12 of 2023 of Sanathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections'1 86 and 504 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')

2. Heard [Vls. Niloufer Afghan, learned counsel representing Mr. ttlohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState lnspite of substituted service by way of paper publication, there is no representation of respondent No.2 either in person or through counsel, as such, this Court after recording his absence proceeded to dispose of the present matter on merits. Perused the record

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief , is that the de facto complainant is working as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Sanathnagar, TSSPDCL. On 06.01 .2023, when the de facto complainant went to petitioner's premises for inspecting service connection, unknown persons abused him as "Madar Chud" and threatened him as he went for inspecting service connection, obstructing his official duties Z

4. Submission of tearned counsel for th e titioner:

4.1. The contention of the rearned counser appearing for the petitioner is that the de facto comprainant, who is a pubric servant, has directly lodged the present compraint, without approaching his higher authorities. To initiate criminal proceedings against the accused under Section 1g6 of lPC, the comprainant has to fire a private compraint as contemprated under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.p.C. tn the instant case, though the offences alleged against the petitioner are non-cognizabre, basing on the Police report lodged by the de facfo comprainant, the porice without obtaining .necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate as required under section 155(2) ot cr.p.c. have registered the present FrR against the petitioner, contrary to law.

4.2. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme court in sfate of Haryana and others v. cH.Bhajan Lar and othersl and drawn attention of this court to guiderine Nos.4 and 6, which are as follows fgllowing categories of cases can be stated by way of ...Th9 illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Afticte 226 or the inherent powers under Section 492 Cr.p.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Couri or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possib/e to lay down any precise,' clearly defined and sufficientty channetised and inflexible guidelines or I rgez scc lcri;426 :i*f 3 rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First lnformation Repoft or the complaint, even if they are taken at thei face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First lnformation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 1 55(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FIR or complant and he evidence collected in suppotl of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case agallrsf the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable oflence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the 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 gtround for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a crihinal 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 him due to private and personal grudge.

4.3. Hence, she prayed to quash the present FIR against the petitioner 4 r-)

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant public prosecutor contended that there are specific ailegations against the petitioners. Ail the allegations revefled in the compraint as weil as in the charge sheet are subject matter of triar, and hence, this is nof a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 186 of lpC, Sections .lgS 155 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder

186. Whoever voluntarily obslrucls any pubtic sevant in the discharge of his public functions. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawfut authority of public servants, for offences against pubtic justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance- (a) (i) ot any offence punishabte under sections 172 to tll (both inclusive)of the lndian pegal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii)of any abetment of, aftempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public sevant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he i$ administratively suborclinate...

155. lnformation as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases.- ,When- .information is given to an officer in charge of a potice (1,) station of the commission within the timits of such o,f u non_ cognizable offence, he shalt enter ot cause to be entetred the subsfance of the information in a book to Oe *ept ty siciifficer in such form as ,he Slate Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the infomant to the Magistrate. (2) !{o police officer sha invistigate a non-cognizable case y,:!:!t the order of a Magistrhti naving poiii ti'iry sucn case or commit Ilre case for trial. "tZtio, ry"/ 5 (3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case. (4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable" 7. According to Section 195 of Cr P.C., under Sections 172 to 188 of lPC, a complaint in writing should be given by a concerned public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. As per Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., a "complaint" means an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with the intention of initiating action under the Code, that a person, known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Section 155 of Cr.P.C. provides that no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case, without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.

8. The record clearly depicts that there was no complaint in writing by lhe de facto complainant, who was an official of Electricity Depa(ment against the petitioner herein, before the jurisdictional [Vlagistrate alleging the offence under Section '186 of lPC. On the other hand, he has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Police for investigation. Undisputedly, I i the offences alteged against the petitioner are non-cognizable. lf it is a non-cognizable offence, the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.p.C. is must and the Police should obtain such permission from the concerned [\4agistrate court before adverting to registration of FIR and investigation 6 of the case- The registration of crime itserf against the petitioner is iilegar, when the necessary mandate under Section i55(2) of Cr.p.C. was not complied with and the bar under Section i9S(1)(a)(i) of Cr.p.C. was operating as on the date of registration of the crime itself. 9' For the foregoing discussion and in view of guiderine Nos.4 and'6 of Bhajanlal's case (supra), this court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminar proceedings against the petitioner amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law as it cannot stand the test of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in F.l.R.No.12 of 2023 of Sanathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR R/t- SECTION OFFICER To, 4 The Xll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, At Kukatpally at prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad. The Station House Officer,, Sanathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri. Mohammad Adnan, Advocate IOPUCI Two CD Copies 2 3

4. 4 DL/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1110712O25 I \ 1 i ORDER CRLP.No.549 ol 2023 ., --,.'--_t__\ :. /; ,r. ;l a) i,'.: \, J., '\. \)( 26 ilE M ..| ,./ 'r/' l',,"s "---. .:.;-. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION