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 in STC No. 14 of 2024 on the file of the J ud icial Fi rst C lass [t/lag istrate, Naga rku rnool This Pet,tron :,tming ori for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirrrinal {)etition and upon hearing the arguments of irr ENUGANTI SUDHANSHU RAO. A,dvocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the ResponCent No. 'l and None appeared for the Responrlent No.2. The Court made tho following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMIN AL PETITION No.2414 OE2Q25 ORALORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in STC No.14 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkumool, against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard Mr. Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

3. The petitioners herein are arraigred as accused Nos.l and 2 in the aforesaid STC No.14 of 2024. The offence alleged against them is under Section - 188 of IPC.

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are that on 26.11.2023 while respondent No.2 was discharging his election duties as In-charge of Flying Squad Team-9, the petitioners herein conducted canvassing near Ambedkar Chourasta at Sripuram Village with 250 to 300 Members under BRS Party and so also bike rally without any permission from Retuming Officer or 2 }. L,J Cr P l.o 2414 012025 Police [)r:partrrcnt and thereby they have violated the Model Code of Conduc .. Thur;. the petitioners committed the aforesaid offeni:e -5. T'herefore, respondent No.2 gave a report to th,: Police, Nagarkrunool Police Station, who in turn registered a case ,n Crime No.455 of 20 21 for the aforesaid offence against the petitioncrs herein and tool. up in.restigation.

6. Durilg the course of investigation, the Investigatinlr Officer examine d respondent No.2 herein as LW. 1 and LWs.2 to 4 as eye- witncssr,s. .l h,: Investigating Officer also secured presence r.f LWs.5 and 6 al;I,arl,-ri witnesses for scene of offence. After comp letion of investigation, the policc Iaid charge sheet against the petitione rs herein for the aforesaid offence and the same was taken on file as Sl C No.14 of 2024 br learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkumool.

7. Mr'. Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, leamed counsel for the petition<,rs, riculd contend that the petitioners are innocent of the offencc allegrxl against them. To attract an offence under liection - 188 of IPC, th,lrc must bc an order promulgated by a public servant. In the instant t:ase, thcre is no such order. No indepcndenl witness rvas examine,i by the Investigating Officer except examirring the w ( ;r, 3 KI,J Crl.P. No.24l4 of2025 police ofhcials. Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid STC cannot go on against the petitioners herein and the same are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

8. Whereas, it is contended by leamed Public Prosecutor that the petitioners conducted bike rally and also canvassed with 250-300 members without obtaining prior permission and thereby they have violated the Model Code of Conduct. There are also specihc allegations levelled against the petitioners. These are all triable issues which this Court cannot consider in a petition under Section - 528 of the BNSS as the same have to be considered after a full-fledged trial only by the trial Court. Thus, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.

9. In view of the above rival submissions, it is apt to note that Section - 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as under: "lEE. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by puttlic servant.-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, if such disobedience causes or tends to 4 I L,l Crl P \o 2414 of2025 ()alrse obstruction! annoyancc or injury, or risk ,rf obstru:.ion. annoyance or injury, to any person laivfully i:rnplov:d. be punished with simple imprisorunent lbr a tcrm rvrich may extend to one month or with fine u'hich rnav cxtend to two hundred rupees, or with both: and if srtch riisobedience causes or trends to cause danger ,o Iurmar: [ife, health or safety, or causes or tends to carsc a ri rt o aflray. shall be punished with imprisonment ,,1 t:itJrer rlescription for a term which may extend to srx rnc'nLhj or with fine which may extend to one lhousand l Lipees. or u,ith both. Iirplana tion.-It is not necessary that the offendr,r s lrould intend to produce harm, or contemplate hrs clisobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufhcient thrLt Ire kno,rs of the order which he disobeys, and that his rlisobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. lllustration An order is promulgated bv a pubhc r ervant lawfully empowered to promulgate such orde , <lir,:cti'rr that a religious proccssion shall not pass dorvn a (ertain ritreet. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thercby c arses rlanger oI riot. A has committed the offence dellne I in this s:ction." 1(). lt i; also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao r'. The State of A.P., rep. b1. Public Prosecutorr while dealing rvith the offences Criminal ['ctitior ..,1o.5:]23 of2009. decidcd on t7.09.2009 5 KI,J Crl P. No.24l4 of2025 under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, leamed Single Judge held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at th-ree road jurctiors contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true. such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given 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 ofthe Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. [n the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or fli' l-:J:i' . i+ili' ':1:tr .l:ii,l. 6 l l,l Crl P ib 2114 of2025 Cr )bstruction to the traffic could not have been considcrcd us :ausire anv danger or injury to any person. In so fir as tlre rbstruction in any public way is concemed, which can ali.o r: co'r,-'rcd by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, tlLe :hargc sheet cites only one witness to speak about tlre .raffic jam caused by the road show. But, u'hen tlLe :onduct of the public meeting at lcast at one place has ber,n r,:rmi t:d and if the gathering for that public meetilg 'csulttxl in any inconvenience by way of obstructing tlre -raffic. thc same cannot be considered to be lvith necessary 3riltr' ,ncns rea to oonstrue the existence of an offcn,-re r,:nislre.ble under lndian I'enal Code. Under tlre ,:ircullr;tances, none of the off'ences alleged can bc said to rilve imy reasonable basis and in any vieiv, tlLe ,xr tplaint/charge sheet being in violation of Scction l!)5 r.1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. As the complaint has failed duc to its u,r- 7 | sur;tainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fai1. rLLough the lst accused alone approached this Court by u,rry rr '' this (lriminal Petition." I t, I:.r Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh. through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West ( iodavari Districtz rell ing on various judgments including N.T. Rarna Raol and the p.uidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in State '. C!ioi.r{ I,rririo I \o.t5248 of20l6, decidedon 26.10.2016 a,r 7 KI.J Crl.P. No 2414 of2025 ( of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal 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 leamed 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 Seetion - 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 filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.

12. ln Bhajan Lal3, 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 complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made '. 1t9921 supp. I SCC 335 : r 8 III,J crl P \lo 2114 of2025 a' in the flR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said tudgment laid dorvn ce lain guidelines/parameters for excrcisc oi'porv,:rs under Section - -t82 of Cr.P.C., which are as under: ' ( l) Vi-rere the allegations made in the first informatiun leport cr the complaint, even if they are taken at their lhce value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facre ( c'nstitute any offence or make out a case against the a c c used. (2) Wlre re the allegations in the first information report an,,l c.ther rLaterials, if any, accompanying the FIR do nr.t cisclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation b.; police c flicers under Section 156(1) of the Codc except unier an order of a Magistrate within the pun ieu, ol SectiorL l5 5(2) of the Code. (.1) Wtere the uncontroverted allegations made in thc FIIiI or c;omplaint and the evidence collected in suppon of thlr srrrrre do not disclose the commission ol any ofI'ence anr I o -l'ence. mal:e out a case against the accused. (il Wtrere the allegations in the FIR do not consritutc i. cogrizaLle offence but constitute only a non_cognizablt no investigation is permitted by a policc oflicer q irhout an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S,:i:rion 155(2) of the Code. (5) 'v\4rtre the allegations made in the FIR or complaiut arl. sc absurl and inherently improbable on the basis ol.ivhich .r- __r(r l)ruCfDt person can ever reach a just conch.rsion thal th:ro il; suffrcient ground for proceeding againsr thc accuscd 9 KI.J Crl P No.2414 of2025 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concemed (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and conlinuancc of the proceedings and./or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the gricvance ofthe aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and./or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view 1o spite him due to private and personal grudge. " The said principle was reiterateil by the Apex Court in catena of decisions , t

13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesha, the Apex Court referring to its earlier I I judgments has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.p.C. has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme cautlon

14. As discussed above, in the present case, the Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Sectioq - 155 of '.,tut zoz t sc g3 t I i I 1i ;:,-, ':. it:.rffi s::" i ,ai',ffi k' ffi- l0 (, l.l,J CrlP llo 2J14 o12025 Cr.P.C. and. as such, the proceedings for the offencc under Section - 1 88 of IPC arc liable to be quashed against the peiitioners hcr:in. 1j. TIrr: present Criminal Petition is accordingll, alltrwed and the procee dings in STC No.14 of 2024 pending on the filc or-Judicial Magistrir1c) ol' First Class, Nagarkumool, are hereby quasherl against the petitiorrer; hercin - accused Nos.1 and 2. As ir scc uel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if an1,. pt:nding in the Criminal l'r:tition shall stand closed. i //TRUE COPY// Sd/- llllOHD; ISMAIL ASSISTANl' RE6ISTRAR \ SECl ION OFFICER To,

1. The Judicial First Class lVlagistrate, Nagarkurnool. 2. The Station Ho.rse Officer, Nagarkurnool Police Station, Nagarlrurnool Dist. 3. One CC trr {lRl ENUGANTI SUDHANSHU RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the rublic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of l elangana at HyderabaC IOL r-l

5. Two CD (:opie:; SIV/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 1910212025 t .' oRDER CRLP.No.2414 of 2025 S l'/A., H q o I2 t I ?$fr 7 2 (. t tP .t e ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION LD