It is also relevant to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The state of A.P., rep. by pubric prosecutorr while dealing

'1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. Sri K. Uday, Sub lnspector of Police Charminagar Police Station, Charminar, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to C.C.No.42712024 on the file of Ir special Judicial First class Magistrate for Excise court Nampally at Hyderabad and Quash the same in the interests of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 l I Petition under section 52g of B.N.s.s., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay arr further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioners herern/Accused Nos.i to 3, 5,6 and B in c.c.No.4z7t2o24 on the file of special Judiciar First crass Magistrate for Excise court Nampaily at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the criminal petition in the interests of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri r v RAMANA RAo, Advocate for the petitioner and sri pale Nageswar Rao, the pubric Prosecutor for the state of relangana on behalf of the Respondent No..l and None Appeared for the n""pofipnt trto Z. The Court made the following: ORDER f1 a ( HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.9l7 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fl lcd under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.427 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Bxcise at Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein - accuscd Nos.l to 3, 5, 6 and 8

2. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao. lcamed counsel for the petitioners and Sri Palle Nagcsw.ar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondcnt No.l - State.

3. The petitioners herein arc arraigncd as accused Nos.1 to 3, 5, 6 and 8 in the aforesaid C.C. No.+2i ol 2024. The offence alleged against them is under Section - I li8 ol'II)C.

4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are while respondent No.1 tvas dischargc patrolling duty he being Sub- Inspector of Police in Charminar Police Station, on 30.05.2024 in the morning hours, along with LVis.2 1l -s lrom Charminar to Madina Junction, he received an infonnation liom aocused Nos.1 and 2 that they are organizing a Press Conleren:r at Charminar Monument along ., KLJ Crl P No917 of2025 with accused No.3. At about I 1.30 .,\.M., it was found that some of the Parry workers of Bhar.atiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) more than g0 persons gathered at Channinar. In thc meantime, accused Nos.3 along with 4 to 8 came in the fornt of Convc,y got down at GulzarHouse and proceeded on walk towards Channinar Monument. In that process, accused No.3 had hold press confercnce for four (04) times i.e., at Opp. Shivarn 1'emple, Mahadev Temple at Charkaman. Sadhbhavana Poll at Charminar and Railing at Chariminar Monument fbr not removing the symbols of charminar and Kakatiya Kala Thoranam from the Telangana State Logo which the present Govemment supposed to be removed. On enquiry, he came to know that the accused persons have conducted the press conference without taking prior permission from the competent authority, and thereby, the petitioners and other accused committed the aforesaid ofi.ence.

5. Basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.l12 of 2024 was registered by Charminar police Station against the petitioners and others for the aforesaid offence and took up investigation. ,) , KL,J Crl P No 917 of2025

6. During the course of invcstigation, the Investigating Officer examined LWs.l to 10 and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein and others for the aforesaid offence and the same 'was taken on file as C.C. No.427 of 2024 by leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Hyderabad.

7. Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, leamed counsei for the petitioners, would contend that the petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against them. To attract an offence under Section - 188 of IPC, there must be an order promulgated L,y a public servant. In the instant case, there is no such order. No independent witness was examined by the Investigating Officer except examining the police officials. Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid CC cannot go on against the petitioners herein and the same are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

8. Whereas, it is contstded by ieanred l'ublic Prosecutor that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners and, therefore, he sought to dismiss ttte present criminal petition' : ; I I 4 KI-,J Crl P No 917 of2025

9. In vierv of the above rival submissions. it is relevant to extract Section - 188 ofIPC and the same is extracted "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a pubtic servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain lrom a certain act. or to take certain order with certain properfy in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction- shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person ta*{ully employed. be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extcnd to two hundred rup€es, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life. health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or zrfliay, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description lor a term which may extend to six months, or with fine wh:ich may extend to one thousand rupees. or rvith both. Explanation.-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. lt is sufficient that he knows of the ordel which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. n^ ? Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass <iou,n a 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.9l7 of2025 certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section." I

10. It is also relevant to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The state of A.P., rep. by pubric prosecutorr while dealing with the offences under Sections - lgg and 2g3 of IpC, the leamed Single Judge held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the police Act, 1g6l could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1g6l and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public seryant concerned or some other person to whom such a public seruant is administratively subordinate to enable any Courl to take cognizance of an offence undcr Section lgg of Code of Crirrinal procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector ofpolice, who could not have been the authority to grant permission fbr the public meeting and therefore , the complaint/charge r. Criminal petition No.5i23 of2009. decided on lT.Oq.ZOOL 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.9i? of2025 ,) sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1Xa) ol Code of Criminal Procedure' 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been cornmitted under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners an<l others is dbviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same' Even otherwise' the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person' In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code' the charge shcet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam causetl by the road show' But' when the conduct o1'the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public rneeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessarv guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishabtc 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 complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (i) (a) olCode of Criminal Procedure, has to fail' As the complaint has lailed due to its un- 7) sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail' though the lst accused alone approached this Court bv rvay of this Criminal Petition." 7 KL.J Crl.P No.gl7 ot2025

11. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State 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 Lal3, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that 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 remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a leamed Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of 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 shall 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 (i) (a) of Cr.P.C. Criminal Petition No.15248 of20t 6, decided on 26.10.2016

2. '. 1too21Supp. I SCC lj5 8 KL.J Crl.P. No 917 of2025 r}

12. In Bhajan Lal3, the Apex Coud cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Coutl cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allcgations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under: "( I ) Where the allegations made in the first informatron report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in thcir entirety do not prima facie constitute any oflence or rnake out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information repofi and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclosc a cognizable offencc' justif 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 suppon of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable 9 KL,J Crl P. No 917 of2025 offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ofrhe Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complainr are so absurd and inherentry improbabre 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 anv of. the provisions of the Code or rhe a^r which a criminar p.o"""aiil :J,:T,:ilf ;X,,::;,1, and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior r on rhe accused and with " and personal grudge.,, venseance ,::t:1-:.*::*t:' rew to spite him due to private The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions

13. In skoda Auto vorkswagen India private Limited v. The state of uttar Pradesha, the Apex courl referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts rn exercise of its inherent powers under section _ 4g2 0f cr.p o. AIR 2o2l sc 93 i .C. has to { { I I I I Il I I I I 10 KL,J a rl P No 917 of 2025 f) quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.

14. Therefore, the lnvestigating Ofhcer did not follow the procedure laid down ,ndet Se"tion - i55 of Cr'P'C' and' as such' the proceedings for the offence under Section - 188 ofIPC are liable to be quashed against the petitioners herein'

15. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No'427 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise at Nampally' Hyderabad' are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos'1 to 3' 5, 6 and 8 onlY Asasequelthereto,miscellaneouspetitions'ifany'pendingin the Criminal Petition shall stand closed' Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI AS IS ANT REGISTRAR /t\ I //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER The special Judicial First class Magistrate for Excise court Nampally at Hyderabad i6" Cf,i"t Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad riie -$iiii"" House " officer, Charhrinigai Police Station, Charminar, Hvderabad. iriro CC. to the Public f rosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hvderabad (OUT) t Ohe CC to SRl. T v RAMANA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To 1 2 J 4 5 6. Pr/gh ,/o 4) \. HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER CRLP.No.917 of 2025 t * \i THE s14 (i z o 10 fft ?I:?5 .s o4TCHEo * ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION e)&tlq W i. t I