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 stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner/A-3 and 4 in C.C.No.324 of 2O24 on the file of XXll Addl. Chief fvletropo I itan lv'l ag istrate at Secunderabad, ; This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N SREENIVASA YADAV, Advocate for the Petitioners and Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appear for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2O53 of 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is frted under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short tsNSS) by petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.324 of 2024 pending on the hle of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.2023, the accused persons violated the Model Code of conduct of Elections by protesting against the political party leader in the middle of the road and caused inconvenience to the public. Hence, a case was registered uide Crirre No.23 1 of 2023 before the Market Police Station, Hyderabad and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed uide C.C.No.324 of 2024 on the fi1e of the XXII Additionat Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, I88,29O,341 read with 149 of the IPC and Section 21 176 of the CPA. 2 S(S,J CrI.P.No.2053 of 2025

3. Heard Sri. Nagula Srinivas Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Jitender Rao Veerama-lla, learned Additiona-l Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the contents of charge sheet and statements of witnesses lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners violated Model of conduct of Elections and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition

6. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant ald it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder: "788. Dtsobcdle[ce to otdet dulg pronttlgated. by publlc sen,o.^L- Whoeuer, k,[otL,ng ttot, bg on order proflullgated bg d public seruant laufullg emeouered. to promulgate such order, he is directed to o,bstclia from a certajn act, or to tdke ceftain order uith certain properig ift hris possessioa or un-der his maMgement, d-isobegs such directior\ sholl, if sudl' disobedience causes or tend.s 3 SKs,J Crl.P.No.2053 of 2O25 to cause obstruction, otnoAonce or inLtry, or rAk of obstruction' nnnng'Lnce or iijury, to aftA person lawfrtllg emploged, be punished u,ith sinPle imprisonment for a tenn uhich mdg ertend to oie motth or tDith fne tohich mag ert'end to ttuo httdred rupees, or with botE and if such disobedience causes or tren'Ls to cause danger to futma lrfe, heatth or safetA, or cc.uses or telds lo caltse a not or dJrra!!, shall be punisfu:ct ll)ith imprbon'1j.eflt oJ' either desciption for a tefln Lufuch mdA extend to six montLs, or uittl fine uhicll maA exletd to one thnusand rupees, or uith botll Exple:r.d.tton.--h Ls tTot necessary thnt tlrc oJlender st}.,uld intend to Produce hDfln, or contempldte hLs disobedience as likety to produce lafln It is s'JJfic'ient thdt he knows of the order uthich he disobeys, drvl thdt his tlLsobedience produces, or is likelg to produce, harm. nlust"dtion An ordcr 6 promulgated by o public seraant LuofltlL! enpou)ered to profiLulgate such order, directlng ttmt o relgious procession shall nol pass doun a cedain street. A kftotl)ttgly disobeAs the order, and therebg causes donger of iot' A h.1s commjtted the gffenc'e defined in thb section.'

7. In N.?. Ro:ma Rao a. The State oJ A.P., rep. bg Public Prosecutorl while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge held as under: '5) Euen if the otlegation thqt the petittoner conducted pub\ic meetings at three rood junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting onlg at one specified place ts ttue, such a direction under Section 3O of the Potice Act, 1861 could lwue been @uen onlg bg the Supertntendent or the Assistctnt Superitendent of Poltce of the Di.stict but not bA anA of their subordincrtes. If such a permission is grqnted under Section 30 of the Potice Act, 1861 and is viotated, Sectton 195 (1) (a) of Code of Ciminal Procedure mandates that th.e complalnt in thts regcLrd ho-s to be made bg the public seruant concerned or some other person to u)hom such a pubtic sen)c.nt is administratiuelA subordinate to enable ang Court to toke cognizqnce of an offerrce under Section 188 of Code of Ciminal l Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09 2oO9 1 4 SKS,J Crl.P No.2O53 of 2025 Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet uas filed bg the Sub hlspector of Police, uho could not have been the authoitg to grant pennission for the public meeting and therefore, the complqint/ charge sheet is in uiolation of the mandatory prouision of Sedion 195(1)(a) of Code of Ciminal Procedure. 6) That apar[ the offence alleged to haue been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code bg the petitioners crnd oth.ers is obuioustg in consetF,tence to the alleged oJfence urd.er Sedion 188 oflrulian Penal Code and is not an independent of tle same. Euen othenui.se, the conduct oJ public meeting at tltee road junction-s or obstruction to the trolfic could not haue been considered as causing ang danger or injury to anA persotu In so far as the obstruction in ang public utag is concerned, uthich can abo be couered bg Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the chdrge sheet cites onlg one uitness to speak about the traffic jam caused bg the road show. But, when the conduct of the pubtic meeting at least at one place ha-s been permitted and if the gatheing for that public meeting resulted in anA inconuenience bg wag of obstnlcting the trafrtc, the same cannot be considered to be uith tgcessary guiltA mens rea to construe the exi.stence oJ an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circunt-stqnces, none of the offences alleged mn be said to haue ang rea-sotwble basis and in ang uieu, tLe complaint/ charge sheet being in uiolation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code oJ Criminal Procedure, has to fatl. 7) As the complaint has faited due to its unstEtainabilitg, the proceedtngs in their entiretg haue to fa , though the 1st accused alone approqched this Court bA utag of this Ciminol Petition.'

8. In Thota Chandra Sekhar a. The State oJ Andhra Pradesh, through S..Ef.O., P.S, Eluru Rural, West Godaaari District2 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao (Supra 7) arrd the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Harydnd o. Bhajan l,als , more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of ttre Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance 'Criminal Petition No.15248 of2016, decided on 26.10.2016 3 (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 i l 5 s7(s,J CrLP.No.2053 of 2O25 of the proceedings and/or where there is a specihc provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing effrcacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for 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 obtaining prior permission under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint frled by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section 195 (i) (a) of Cr.P.C.

9. Therefore, there should be an allegation that the petitioners violated the orders issued either by the Eiection Commission of India or State Election Commission or any Election Authority not to convene any meeting. "Election Matter" means any matter intended or calculated to influence or affect the result of an election.

10. As discussed above, none of the witnesses spoke that tl.e petitioners conducted press meet in violation of the orders issued by the Election Commission of India with regard to the election matter intending to influence or a-ffect the result of an election. 6 SKgJ Crl.P.No.2053 of 2o25 1 1. In Bhajan Lal (Supra 3/, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complajnt, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under "(1) Where the allegations made in the First Infonnation Reporl or the amplaint, euen tf theg are taken at their face ualue and accepted in their entiretg do not pima facie constitute any offence or make out a cose against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Infonnation Report and other mateials, if any, accompanging the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifging an inuestigation bg potice olficers under Section 156(1) of th,e Code except under an order of a Magistrate uithin the puruieu of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontrouerled allegations mode in the FIR or 'comploint and the euidence colLected in support of the same do not disclose tLre commission of any offence and mnke out o case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute onlg a non-cognizable offence, no inuestigation is permitted by a potice officer uithout an order of a Magistrate as rnntemploted under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) uhere the allegations made in the FIR or amplaint are so absurd and inherentlg improbable on the ba.sis of tuhich no prudent person (yn euer reach a just conclusion that there i.s sufficient ground for proceeding agah-* *tE accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafied in ang of the prouisions of the Code or the ancerned Act (under uhich a ciminal proceeding is instituted) to tle in stitu- tion and a:ntinuance of tLe proceedings and/ or uLhere th.ere b a specific prouisioa in tlre Code or th,e ancented Act, prouiding efficacious redress for tLrc gieuance of the aggieued. partg. (7) Where o criminal proceeding is manifestlg attended uith mala fide and/ or u.there the proceeding is maliciouslg in-stituted - ,,.::-. 7 sKgJ Crl.P.No.2O53 of 2O25 with an u[teior motiue for wreaking uengeance on the accused and uith a uietlt to spite him due to piuate and personal grudge."

12. The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. Pertinently, the contents of - charge sheet and statements of the witnesses lack the ingredients of the alleged offences. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

13. Accordingly, this Crimina-l petition is allowed arld the proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.3 arrd 4 in c'c.No.324 of 2024 pending on the file of the learnecl XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if aly pending, shall also stand closed SD/. P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ I '/ seirror.r oFFrcER n, U To,

1. The XXll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad 2 The Station House Officer, Market P.S., Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI N SREENIVASA YADAV Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies Vsnr/PSL YV I l HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 l '.'. .$ I, '-t i. i\.\.s e\. \' ':i' .:' '.',f ORDER CRLP.No.2053 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION (*- 6a- ,/-> f v