The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of B N S'S: pl'Iino that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand":i ;;;';;"-oi criminat ietiiion the Hiqh court mav be oleased to quash t^t p'o"J"o'""J"''!""t it't.oe11i1ner in c C No'1 123 ol 2021 on the fire of the l Additio";r JDia Fd Magistrate- at Jaotiar, Jagtial District, for the offences Punishable uo 'tii, ii^'iioliai' rzo- er/i^/ tog' '14e or IPC' l.A. NO: 2 oF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of B N S S: pl'Iilo that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand''"';i ;;;';l;oi Crlminar Petition the High court may be of the petitioner oleased to stay atr turtner"pr-o"tlaingt including .anoearance * ii" i; ;i i[" Riditionat JDCL FC Masistrate at 'herein in C.C.No.1123 "t 'bil ttf""""t punisfraot Ups '143 '1 53-A' 186' 187 ' 12o- Jaotial, Jagtial District, ""i" B iw 109 i+s ot tPc. This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal pet''iion anO upon hearing the arguments of Sri SHAIK MUHAMMED nBEO, novocai" io' tn" Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State of Telanganga on u"ilrior the Respondent No'1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER : I I L ,l r,,*r..r.".=-^)7 HON']}LE SMT. JUSTICE JU\'VADI SRIDTVI CI I.IMINAL PETITION No.1876 of 2025 ORDER. l'his (l"inrinal Petition is filed under Section 52g of Bharatiya rlagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ry the petitioner,lac,:rrsed No.l0 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1 ?.3 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate o First Class, Jagtial District, pertaining t,r Crime No.189 of ll0 I 8 ol P.S. Jagtial Town, registered for the off'ences punrshable under Sections 143, 153-A, lg6, il.i7, 120_ B rcad with I tt9, I .+9 of Indian penal Code (for short ,Iu6,',. 2 Heard lvlr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel tbr petitio,er as well as Sri Jithender Rao veeramaila. learned Additional P.rblic prosecutor appearing for the resprtndent_ State and perrLsed the record.

3. Basing rn the complaint dated 15.07.201g lodged by the 2nd respondent-the Inspector of police, Jagtial poricc sitation, that the pet.i1i.,er herein along with other petitioners, ra,ho are the office berrrers of popular Front of India, Jagtial, have organized a n-eetir.rg rvith the activists of pFI, I,ratchcd a plan 2 with criminal conspiracy to attack on SFI students as well as Hindu Community by promoting enmity between regional groups and likely to disturb the public tranquility etc. The owner of the function hall abated the PFI ac.tivists to organize the said meeting in the function hall and not cooperated to the public servants. As per the instructions of superior officers, inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.189 of 2018. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as C.C.No.l123 of 202L

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature, therefore, cognizance for offence under Section 186 and 187 of the IPC cannot be taken based on police report and cognizance can only be taken on the complaint in writing as defined under section 2(d) of the Code. Further the said section bars taking cognizance of the offence under Section 186 and 187 of IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public I -.--**'==*-.rz '- .: 12- 3 servant to rvlrorn he is administratively subordinate. lirerefore, the FIR res stered on the complaint made by the de facto complainant, ivho is a Police Officer, is not maintainable and the same is lirble to be quashed.

5. In sultport of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner reljed on the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court in State of Ku nataka v, Hemareddyl , wherein,, at pa-agraph No.8., it is I'rell as follows: ' \\'e agree with the view expressed by the learnet .ludqt and hold that in cascs where in the course of thr same transaction an offcnce for which no complaint bv i: Clourl is necessary under Section 195(l) (b) ofthe Codc o. Clirninal Procedure and an offence for which a complain 01' a (-loun is necessary under that sub_section. arc comn i:ied. it is not possiblc to split up and hold that tht proscr rrtion ol thc accused fbr the offences not mentioned in Scr tion 195(1Xb) of the Codc of Criminal procedure shouktlrc upheld". (Emphasis supplied) Hence, hc pr.ayed to quash the proceedings agairst the petltroner. ' etn tgst sc t+ta, 4

6. Learned Additional public prosecutor2 on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has also been charged with the offences other than 186 and 1g7 ofIpC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance. of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner, as such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one without authority of Law. He further submitted that 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 the petition.

7. For the sake ofconvenience, Section lg6. 1g7 ofIpC and Section 195 of Cr.p.C. are extrhcted hereunder.

186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, sha[ be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or *ith fine which may extend to five hundred rupecs, or r.vith both.

187. Whoever, being bound by law to render or fumish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall 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 assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competcnt to make such demand for the purposes of 5 e\ccllting any process lawfully issued by a Court of Jus.i:c, or of preventing the commission ofan ollcncc. or srt;'nrcssing a riot. or allray. or ol apprehending a pcrr on cha '1red rvith or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped fror r larvful custody, shall be punished rvith simlle inrpl sonment for a term which may extend to six montlis, or \,rth llne which may exlend to fir,c hundrcd rupecs, or witlL hoth.

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawlul author.tv ol l,rrblic servants. for ollences against public jusri,:e and fbr oI'fences relating 10 documcnts given in er ic e nce. ( 1) No Courts shalt take cognizance_ (a) ri) ofany offence punishable under sections 172 to 1tt8 (both inclusive)ol the Indian l,enal Code (45 ,rf I 86r) ). or (ii)cl any abetment ofi'c r:e. or (iii) rl an). criminal oonspiracy to commit. such o ft-e r,:e. exoept on thc complaint in u,riting of tlre publit: scrvant concerned or of some othcr public serv Utt to whom he is administratively suborciinate... oi attempt to cornmit. such (b)(irof any ollbnce punishable under an1, of thc follor, ing sections of the Indian penal Code (45 r,f l8r,r r 116,,,.;r. sections 193 ro lq6 lboth inclusire. l9(). -U(). 205 ro 2ll thorh inclusivc.l and 12g, *herr such off-ence is alleged to have been committed in. cr in rc'ariorr to. any proceetling in any Court, or (ii)o1 an1, ol'fence dcscribed in section 463. o: Irurri'l rhlc under section 471. secrion 475 or s,:criotr 476 r,l'thc said Code, rvhen such ol'tence is alleged to har e been committed in respect of a documen _ ptollr rcd ,,r. givcn in er idence in a proceeding in an., (-.lttt . Ur (iii)o ' any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attemp. to co rmit. or the abetment of, any offence specifiecl in sut -clause (i) or sub-clause (ii). I I ) i I I l t I I 6

8. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Section 186 and 187 of IpC 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 concerned, as is required under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.p.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Section [86 and 187 of IPC are liable to be quashed. Insofar as other ofltnces i.e., 143,153-A 120-B read with 1O9, 149 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Hemareddy's cuse (supra), iI 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 petitioner. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner stands vitiated and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. I I l I I 7 9 In vit rv of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal l)etition is allowed alc[ the proceedings against the petitione t/accused No.10 in C.C.No.l123 of 2021 on the file of I Addiriona Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District, are hereby c uashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sdr-V. KAVITHA ASSISTANl' REGISTRAR Uecrroru oFFrcER 1 2 J 4( The lAdditional Judicial lt/lagistrate of First Class at Jagtial District. The Station HoL se Officer, Jagtial Town Police Station. Karimnagar District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to SRI SHAIK N/UHAMMED ABED, Advocate IOPUCI T CD Copies L'' To HIGH COURT DATED: 11101212025 i { ORDER ' CRLP.No.187,5 of 2025 CRL.PETITIOII IS ALLOWED /.. I I i.) t' -) \.':.,\l'',* 0 7 APfi 2$;5 '"-1 Z o O5 .9 P,AI t'r/' 7 w l