The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 29 of 2O25 on the file of Motkur Police Station, Rachakonda District against the Petitioner. This Petition comtng on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bala Murali Y. Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 . The Court made the following Order : THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI llRlM|NAL PETITION No.1833 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.29 of 2025 ot P.S. Motkur, Rachakonda, registered for the offences under Sections 223 of BNS (previously Section 188 of lpC) and 24(1) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products (prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short ,COTPA')

02. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State

03. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits th-at the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. Section t95(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of the offence under Section 223 of BNS, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. ln the present case, the complaint was lodged by the de facfo complainant, who I I i 2 .!r. is not a competent person, therefore, the present FIR is not ) maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner- accused No.2.

04. On the other hand, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for- the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss this petition.

05. For the sake of convenience, Section 223 of BNS and Section '195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder:- Section 223 of BNS.' Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is diected to abstain from a ceftain act, or to take cettain order with certain propefty in h/s possesslo, or under his management, disobeys such direction,- (a) shall, if such disobedience causes or tends fo 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 six months, or with fine which may extend to tvvo thousand and five hundred rupees, or with both; (b) and where such disobedience causes or tends 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 3 extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-lt is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as hkely to produce harm. lt is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Section 195 of Cr.P.C: Prosecution for contempt of Iawtul authority of public servants, for offences against pubtic justice and for offences relating to documents given in evideice. ll)No Court shall take cognizance' lB)(i)of any offence punishable under secflons 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii)of any abetment of , or attempt to commit, such offence, (iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or other public servant to whom he is ad m ini stratively subord i nate ; lb)(,)of any offence punishable under any of the following sectlons of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), ilamely, secllons 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199,200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been commifted in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Coutt, 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)ot any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.l [Substituted by Act 2 of 2006, Secfion 3 for "except on the complaint in writing of that Court, of some other Coutt to which that Court is subordinate" (w.e.f. 16-4-2006).1 i I 4

06. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 223 of BNS have been initiated, basing on the complaint made by the de-facto complainant, who is a Police Officer, but not on the basis of complaint in writing of the public servant ioncerned, as is required under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 223 of BNS, are liable to be quashed.

07. lnsofar as other offence i.e., Section 24(11 of COTPA, it is apt to refer to Section 24 (1) and 6 of the COTP Act, for better appreciation of the case and to decide the issue in question and the same is as under: "24(1) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 6 shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.

6. Prohibition on sale of cigarette or other tobacco products to a person below the age of eighteen years and in particular area.- No person shall sell, offer for sale, or permit sale of, cigarette or any other tobacco product{a)to any person who is under eighteen years of age, and(b)in an area within a radius of one hundred yards of any educational institution.

08. Since there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the entire complaint that he has sold tobacco products 5 to a minor or in an area within a radius of one hundred yards of any educational institution and as there is no mention of particulars of the minor to whom the petitioner has sold the tobacco products in contravention to Section 2a () of COTPA, the proceedings against the petitioner for the said offence are also liable to be quashed.

09. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in crime No.2g of 2025 of P.S. Motkur, Rachakonda, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTTINT REGISTRAR SE:CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal -ludicial First Class lvlagistrate at Ramannapet The Statlon House Officer, ttlotkur PS, Rachakonda District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [Ot.JT] One CC to Sri Bala lvlurali Y, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 2 J 4 5 VA/gh W I HIGH COURT DATED:10102t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1833 of 2025 1nE SIA (,.^ ( (€: 1 B ttB 2025 \ I la+ t Dr: ALLOWING THE CRLP @ d