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 SC NO.155 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 188,272,273,269,328 rlw 34 IPC and Sec 20(2) of COTPA ACT against the petitioner. l.A. NO: 2OF 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 direct the respondents / Tappachabutra Police station to release the property l.Baba-120 grms(54 tins), 2.RR Gold Pan Masala-45 Packets(each packet contains 70 pouches), 3. RR Gold Zardha 45 Packets (each packet contains 70 pouches), 4. K-9000-100 Packets (each packet contains 65 pouches), 5. Baba-120 Zardha -150 Packets (each packet contains 58 pouches), 6. Win Cigarette -38 Boxes (each box contains 10 cigarette packets), 7. Paris Cigaratte- 1 3 Boxes (each box contains 10 cigarette packets), 8. Dunhill-S Boxes(each box contains 10 cigarette packets) all of worth Rs 1,00,000/-, seized in SC No. '155 of 2023 on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad in favour of the petitioner. r a This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Merr,crandum of ds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri y. BALA Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla of the Respondents Groun MURALI Additionat.&lnEli6 pros*ukjr on behatf The Court made the foilowing ORDER: t' I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2275 ot 2025 ORBLft This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.'155 of 2023 on the file of ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 188, 272' 273,269 and 328 r/w. 34 of IPC and 20(2) ot the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act'). .'

2. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner- accused No.1 and Sri Jithender Rao VeeramalL learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondentState.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that Section 195(1Xa)(1) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC' unless there is a written complaint by public servant concerned for contempUviolation of his lawful orders. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 2

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public t)rosecutor submitted thal the petitioner has also been charged with the offences other than 188 of lPC. Hence, the learned lVlagistrate has rightly laken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner, basing on the final report filed by the Police, as such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by the learned [Vlagistrate 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 krrown after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. For the sake of convenience, Section 188rof lpC and Section '195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.

188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated tty public ssrv6r1 - Whoever, knowing that, by an order prornulgated by a public servant lawfully empowerecl to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstaln from a certain act, or to take. certain order w,ith certain propefty rn his posses sion or under ,\ls management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such dis:obedience causes Io tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or isk of obstructi<tn, annoyance or injury, to any person lavvft,lly enrployed, be punished with simple imprisonment rctr a tenn 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 ht cause danger to human life, health or safety, cr cal,,ses or tends to cause a riot or affray, shalt be punished with impisonment of either description for a t'erm which may extend to six months, or with fine , 3 which may extend to one thousand rupees' or with both. . *f'^ lgi. * Arosecution for contempt of lavvful aulhonty - oi iuOtic servants, for offences against public.iustice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Coutls shall take cognizance- tul il of a'ny offence punishable under sections 172 io' i6a poti, inclusive)of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii)of any abetment of , attemPt to commit, such offence, or i;i ;i' ;ry ciminat conspira.cv tl *ry!']'^i',il iff"n"", except on the complaint in writing ol me oublic servant concerned or of some other puofic '"iiinl to whom he is administratively subordinate"' (bl(ilof anv offence punishabte under any of lhe tiJiirg i""tions of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 'iaaiili,iriav, sectlons 193 to 196 (both inctusive)' tsg:'boo zo6'to ztt (both inclusive) and 228' *h"n .. tii'n oiin". is atleged to have been commifted in' or ' in retation to, any proceeding in any Cou.rt' or tiilif anv offeice descibed in section 463' .or 'oli,itiuirc under section 471, section 475 or section i\a iiti,i said code, when such offence is lleged ioiiu" been committed in respect of a doiument 'iroiuna or given in evidence in a proceeding in any lii-i1ii'uny criminalconspiracy to commit' * ?yT!:2 commit,'or the abetment of, any offence specttted tn sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii)' Court, or . ^^ Having heard both sides and perused the material on 6 record, it is evident that Section 195(1XaX1) of Cr'P'C' bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of lPC, unless there is a written complaint by public servant concerned for contempUviolation of his lawful orders' In the present case, basing on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent-de facfo complainant, who is not a competent person' 4 present crime was registered and cognizance was taken by the learne(.. Mag$;trate. Hence, the proceedings against the . -+., petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed

7. ln the judgment of Sfate of Karnataka v. Hemareddyl , al paragraph No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows " We agree with the view expressed by lhe leamed Judge and hold that rn cases where in lhe ccturse of the same transaction an offence for whic:h nct complaint by a Court is necessary under Sectic'n 1Sl5(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offsns. for which a complaint of a Court is necess,?rlr' under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possrb/e to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned tn Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld". (Emphasis supplied) ..

8. lnsofar as other offences i.e., Sections 272, 273, 269 and 328 rlw. 34 of IPC and 20(2) of the COTP Act, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. in Hemareddy's case (supra), it is clear that if the offences formed part of lhe same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section i95 of Cr.P.C., it is not possible to split up and hold the prosec,ution of the petitioner. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesairl offences against the petitioner stands vitiated and ' atn t98t sc t.t t'' I 5 the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amoultq,lo ,.?$" process of law _9f

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in S.C.No.155 of 2023 on the file of ll Additional tVletropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed As a seq uel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ASSIS Sd/. N..SRIHARI T REGISTRAR ECTION OF FICER I To,

2. J. 4 5 The ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad' The Station House Officer , Tappachabutra Police Station' Hyderabad Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad.(OUT) One CC to SRl. Y. BALA MURALI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies kut/ghv I I t H|GH COUErf !t DATED:1810212O25 ORDER CRL.PETITION No.2275 ol 2025 :i HE Sr4 k 3 O B / i,irl Z[25 t {)6S,ATCH 6C z c ) <\' * ALLOWING THE CRt,.PETITION b a