In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr while deating

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN cRIMINAL PETITION No.l503 OF 2025 ORAL ORI)[,R: This Criminal Petition is filed under Seation - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.281 of 2022 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Excise Cases, Nampatly, I{1'derabad. The petitioners herein are araigned as accused Nos.2 and 5 in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under Section - 188 of IPC.

2. H.:ard Mr. H. Prahalad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners a nd the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalfofrespondent No.1 - State.

3. -['tre allegations levelled in the charge sheet are that, on

12.03.2019, at about i 1.00 hours in an open place opposite to RDO Office, Vikarabad, when the LW. 1, was discharging election duties as Flying Squad Team (FST-I) along with LW's 2 to 4, they noticed that the petitioners herein along with other accused ate performing Hunger Strike in an open place opposite to RDO I : I I 2 KL,J Crl,P. No.l503 of202i Office, Vikarabad, without any permission from the concemed authorities and thereby violated the Election Model Code of Conduct during the Election Code. Thus, the petitioners were committed the aforesaid offence. 4 Basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the S.H.O., Vikarabad registered a case in Crime No.69 of 2Ol9 punishable under Section 188 oflPC.

5. Afier cornplction of investigation, the police filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the aforesaid off'ence and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.281 of 2022 against them f,or the said oil'ence.

6. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr while deating with the ofl'ences under Sections - 188 and 283 oflPC, the learned Singte Judge held as under: "5) Evcn if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded fbr conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under r. Criminal Petition No.5323 of2009. decided on 17.09.2009 \ \ KI,J Crl.P. No.l503 of2025 Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been givcn 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 ol' the Police Act, I 861 and is violated, Section I 95 ( I ) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to bc made by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a publio sen ant is administratively subordinate to enablc any Court to take cognizance of an otTcnce under Section 1Stl of Code of Criminal Proccdure. In the prcsent casc, the chargc sheet ,'r as flled by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to granl pennission lor the public meeling and thercfore, the complainUchargc sheet is in v iolation of the mandatory provision ol Section I 95( I )(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6) t hat apart, the off-ence alleged to have been comrnitted under Section 283 of the lndian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged olfence under Section 188 of Indian Penal ('odc and is not an independent of the same. frven otherwise, the conduct of public meeting I 4 KL.J Crl.P. No.l503 of2025 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 concemed, which can also be aovered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam 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 lbr that public meeting resultcd in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the tralfic, the same cannot bc considered to be with nccessary guilly mens rea to construe the existence of an oflence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Undcr the circumstances, none of thc ot'fences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Seotion 195 ( I ) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its unsustainabitity, the proceedings in their entirety have to flail, though the l't accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition." \ I ! ) KI.,J Crl.P. No. t50l of2025

7. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.II.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2 relying on various judgments inctuding N.T. Ilama Raor and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supremc Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engralied in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a crirninal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and 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 fbr 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 ohtaining 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 purpo( of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26. t0.2016

2. '. llfZ; Supp. r SCC 335 I 6 KI- J Crl.P. No.l503 of 2025

8. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncements, coming to the case on hand, the only allegation levelled against the petitioners herein is that they along with others gathered and performed Hunger Strike without any permission and thereby they violated the Etection Model Code of Conduct during the Election Code and, thus, they committed the aforesaid offence. But, there is no mention in the charge sheet as to which orders that were disobeyed by the petitioners. In the present case, the complaint was filed by LW. l, who was discharging election duties as Flying Squad Team (FST-I) and the charge sheet was filed by the Sub-lnspector of Police, Vikarabad Police Station and therefore, the charge sheet is in violation of mandatory provision of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. Section - 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. It says whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully 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, ifsuch disobedience causes or tends i \ l KL,J (lrl.P. \o.1,503 of 2025 to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or inlury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment lor a term which may extend to one month or wrth 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 \ I description li)r a telm which may extend to six months. or u,ith fine which ma1' extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The contents ol the charge sheet are lacking the said ingredients. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in the abor.e said two judgments and in view of the above said discussion, the proceedings in C.C. No.28l of 2022 are liable to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section - 582 of BNSS against the petitioners alone.

9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.281 of 2022 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Excise Cases, I IJ KL,J C-rl.P. No.1503 of 2025 Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 5 alone. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I I To, '1 . The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Trial of Excise Cases' z. in" bt"iion House Officer, Vikaiabad Police Station' Vikarabad Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad ^ District. a. One CC to Sri H. Prahalad Reddy ' ;. i;" CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Advocate [OPUC] Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD coPies. y- BJLB/nsk \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 ORDER CRLP.No.1503 of 2O25 I oF TG 'aS *.$ \\- trr \= +d\ ?\ ,rr/ CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED @ q ,d\ t i I I I