High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying thar in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petiticn, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitiorers in C.C.No.1123 of 2021 on the file of the I Additionat JDCL FC Magistrate at Jagtiat, Jagtial District, fortheoffences Punrshable'U/s.143, 153-A, 186,187,120_3rlw 109, 149of lpC; ...RESPONDENTS LA. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petiticn,the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners herein in c c.No l123 of 2021 on the file of the I Additionirt JDCL Fc Magistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District, for the offences Punishable U/s..143, 1S3-A, ig6, 1g7, 120-Brlw'109, 149 of lPC. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the f\Aemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri SHAIK MUHAMMED ABED ,Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 'l an(l none appear for the Respondent No.2, I ' The Court made the following ORDER: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMIN AL PETITION No.1337 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 9 and ll to 13 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.l123 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judiciat Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District, pertaining to Crime No.189 of 2018 of P'S. Jagtial Town, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 153-A, 186, 187, 120-8 read with 109, 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State and perused the record.

3. Basing on the complaint dated 15.07.2018 lodged by the 2nd respondent-the Inspector of Police, Jagtial Police Station, thatthe petitioners/accused Nos. I to 9 and ll to 13, who are the office bearers of Popular Front of India, Jagtial, have 2 organized a meeting with the activists of pFI, hatched a plan with criminal conspiracy to attack on SFI stuCents as well as Hindu Community by promoting enrnity bertween regional groups and likely to disturb the public tr.an<luility etc. The owner of the function hall abated the pFI activists to organize the said meeting in the function hall and not ccoperated to the public servants. As per the instructions of suoerior officers, inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No. lg9 of 201g. After completion of investigation, charge .t,."t *u, i,t"a, cognlzance was taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No.1123 ot202t.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He furrher submits thar Secrion 195(l)ra) of Cr.p.C. is mandatory in nature, therefore, cognizance for offence under Section 186 and 187 of the IpC cannor be taken.based on police report and cognizance can only be tzLken on the complaint in writing as defined under section 2(d) of the Code. Further the said section bars taking cognizance ol.the offence under Section 186 and lg7 of IpC, except on the r:omplaint in r a w"r/ 3 writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Therefore, the FIR registered on the complaint made by the de facto complainant, who is a Police Officer, is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddyl , wherein at paragraph No.8, it is held as follows: " We agree with the view expressed by the leamed Judge and hold that in cases where in the course 6l the same transaction an olfence lor which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(l) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence lor which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accuscd lor the olfences not mentioned in Section 195(l)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld". (Emphasis supplied) . Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. ' etR t98l sc utz 4

6. Learned Additional public prosecutor, orr the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have also been charged with the offences other than 186 and 1g7 ofIpC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance ol. the aforesaid offences against the petitioners, as such, tlre proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one without aulhority of Law. He further submitted that the truth or othr:rwise of .the allegations levelled against the petitioners can c,nly be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, hr prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sake ofconvenience, Section lg6, lg7 oflpC and Section 195 of Cr.p.C. are extracted hereunder.

186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shafl be punished with imprisonment ol either descripr ion lor a term which may extend to three months. or with fine which rnay extend to five hundred rupees, rrr with both.

187. Whoevcr, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution ol his public duty, intentionally omits to givc such assislance. shall blpunished rvirh simple imprisonrnent lor a lerm u hrch ntal exlcnd ro one month. or with fine whit h may extcnd to two hundred rupees, or with both; and jf such Y 5 assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purposes of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shatl be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

195. Prosecution lor contempt of lawful authority of public servants, lor oflences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shalltake cognizanie- (a) (i) ofany ollence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1E60), or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, offence. except on the complaint in writing 6f the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate... - (bXi)of any ollence punishable under any of the following sections ol the Indian Penal Code (45 ol 1860), namely, sections I93 to 196 (both inclusive), 199,200,205 to 2l I (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is atleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii)of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any olfence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii). 6

8. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that the proceedings againsr the petitioners for the offences under Section l g6 and l g7 of IpC have been initiated, basing on the complair.rt made by the de facto complainant, who is a police Officer, but not c,n the basis of complaint in writing of the public setvant concerned, as is required under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.p.C. l.herefore, the proceedings against the petitioners for the orfences under Section 186 and 187 of IpC are liable to be quashed. [nsofar as other offences i.e., 143,153-A 120_B read with7l09 , 149 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemareddy's case (supra), it is clear that if the offences formed part of the same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.p.C., it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecu:ion of the petitioners. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cbgnizance ofthe aforesaid offences against the petitioners stards vitiated and the continuation of criminal proceedings eLgainst petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law. -ry g. ln view o 7 f the aforesaid reasons' this Criminal Petition is ceedings against the petitioners/accused 13 in C.C'No'1123 of 2021 onthe file of Magistrate of First Class' Jagtial District' allowed and the Pro Nos.l to 9 and 11 to I Additional Judicial are herebY quashed' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ,/TRUE COPY// ,,r?fliT"gc,'"+[1h AS E TION OFFICER d ili'#'l*,iii,"i,5ii:"il,1ffii?Jjil'?Jft#il;,,,""'#tro.rl Two CD CoPies To

1. 2 n 4 5 $ HIGH COURT DATED:31 t}lt2O2S ORDER CRLP.No.1337 of 2025 ..-.r-.S1.:;6' ..1 ,.. /'.o" t\ ,? \ 11 lilfi 20i5 )ggr:q;Cf\gO ( 'a" p +tl * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION @+ e) I 1\ v