The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482l of Cr.P.C,52B of B.N.S.S praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal. Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR against the petitioners in C.R.No,418 of 2020 On the file of Police Station Jagtial Town at Jagtial, Jagtial District for the offences Punishable U/s 188, of IPC and Section 54 of Disaster Management Act and Sec 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1897. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affiJdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of the petitioners herein in in C.R.No.41I of 2020 On the file of Police Station Jagtial Town at Jagtial, Jagtial District Pending disposal of CRLP 1546 of 2025, on the file of the High Court. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate for the Petitioners and the of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Addl Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I ; HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1546 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.418 of 2020 of PS Jagtial Town at l Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 1BB and Section 54 of Disaster [Vlanagement Act, 2005 (for short 'Act')

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 15.08.2020 rodged by the 2nd respondent-the lnspector of Police, Jagtial Police Station, that the petitioners/accused Nos.'1 and 2 and others, who belonged to PFI Party were spreading rumors that they are trained in Covid-19 rules, and they will perform last rites of those who died due to Covide-19 disease and accused No.'1 using his cell phone posting pictures and messages to his contact groups. Thereby, the accused Nos.'1 and 2 diobeyed the Orders promulgated by the Government of Telangana issued against spreadrng of corona \ 2 virus disease under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1g97. A case in Crime No.418 of 2020 was registered against the petitioners and others.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that Section i95(l)(a) of Cr.p.C. bars taking cognizance of the offence under Section jgg of lpC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is admlnistratively subordinate. ln the present case, the complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant, who is not a competent person, the present FIR is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the offence under Section 54 of the Act, shall be deemed to have been committed under Section 1gg of lpC. When Section 188 of IPC warrants filing of a private complaint, the same restriction applies to Section 54 of the Act also. Since the prime offence under Section 188 of lpC is bar:red by Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.

5. ln support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sfafe of \ \ \ I :s ;i, )J Karnataka v. Hemareddy', wherein, at paragraph No.8, it is held as follows '' We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is ner;essary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for 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 accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld". (Emphasis supplied) Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners 6 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have also been charged with the offences other than 1BB of lPC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners, basing on the final report filed by the Police, as such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one without authority ' atR t..r8 I s( t-l i 4 ( of Law. He further submitted that the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sake of convenience, Section 1gg of lpC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder. 188 of lPC. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public seryant _ Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant laMully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a - certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, 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 affray, shall be punished with 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. 195 of Cr.P.C. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance- ,-@wo=,,9 l I I ;l-' I I 5 (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (rii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate... (b)(i)of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to '196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged 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 offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii) 8 Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section 188 of IPC have been initiated, basing on the complaint made by Ihe de facto complainant, who is a Police Officer, but not on the basis of complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, as is required under Section I t 6 195(1Xa) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section 1gg of lpC are liable to be quashed. lnsofar as other offence i.e., Section 3 of the Act is 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 prosecution of the petitioners. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners stands vitiated and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process : of law.

9. l ln view of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.41B of 2O2O of pS Jagtial Town at Jagtial District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. KAVITHA A SISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 1 . The 1't Addl Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Jagtial Dist.

2. The Station House Officer, Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District.

3. One CC to Sri Shaik Aluhammed Abed, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] i i \

5. Two CD copies. I]J I ,B w \ HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 I ORDER CRLP.No.1546 of 2O25 I l I I CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 25flAHzffi a i:.S PAT Ctlr-O t { '. \ @ ,\5 e