The High Court · 2025

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases relating to MPs and ML.As. llyderabad, against the petitioners herein - accuscd Nos.2 and i.

2. Heard NIr. G.Bhaskar I{eddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and leamed Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.l - State.

3. 'l'he petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the aforesaid C'.C.No.466 of 2023. The offence alleged against them is under Section - 188 of IPC.

4. As pcr the charge sheet, the allegations levellecl against the petitioners hclein are that on 10.04.2021 while respondenl No.2 along with his stafT r,vere discharging their election duties as ln-charge of MCC Team-2, the petitioners herein conducted campaigning program at Vutlapally ancl Pulicherla Villages without any prior permission )_ K I-..I Crl.P. No.2576 of2025 from Returning Olficer or Police Depaftment and thereby they have violated the Model Code of Conduct. Thus, the petitioners committed thc aforesaid oflence. 5 Therefore, respondent No.2 gave a repor1 to thc Police, Peddavoora Police Station, who in tum registered a case in Crime No.127 of 221 for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners herein and took up investigation. t 6. During the course of inve*igation. the lnvestigating Officer cxamined respondent No.2 herein as I-W.1 and LWs.2 and 3 as eyc- rvitncsses. At'ter completion of investrgation,, the police laid charge slieet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offence ar.rci the samc was taken on file as C.C.No.466 of 2023 by leamed Special .ludicial Magistrate of First Class tbr trial o1'cascs relating to MPs arrd MLAs, Hyderabad.

7. Mr. G.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioncrs, would contend that the petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against them. To attract an offence under Section - 188 of IPC, there must be an order promulgated by a public servant. In the instant case, therc is no such order. No independent witness was examined by the 3 KL,] (11.1'. No.2576o12025 Investigating ()fllcer except examining the police official;. Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid CC cannot go on against the petitioners herein and the same are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

8. Whereas, it is contended by learned Public Pr,tsecutor that the petitioners, conducted campaigning by using vehicles without obtaining prior permission and thereby thev have violated the l\4odel Code of Condr-rct. '['here are also pecific allegations levelled against the petitioners These are all triable issues which this Court cannot consider in a petition under Section - 528 of the IINSS ns the same have to be consideled after a full-t)edged triat only by the trial Cour1. Thus, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.

9. In v'ierv ol the above rival submissions, it is apl to note that Section lSti of ll'C deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated bv a public servant'and the same is extracted as under: "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully ernpowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain frorn a certain act, or to take cerlain order with certain property in hislpossession or under his managernent, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to I r : l 4 KL,J Crl P. No 2576 of2025 cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple irnprisorunent for a tenn which may extend to one month or with fine which rnay extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to hurnan life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with irnprisomnent of either description for a tenn which may extend to six rnonths, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with hoth. Explanation. It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce hann, or conternplate his disobedience as likely to produce hann. lt is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, hann. Illustration An order is prornulgated by a public servant lawfully ernpowered to prornulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a ceftain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."

10. lt is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Putrlic Prosecutorr while dealing with the offences Criminal Petition No.-5323 of2009. decided on 17.09.2009 I 5 KI-,J C r .P. No 2576 of2025 under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, learned Single Judge held as *5) El en if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public rneetings at three road junctions contrary to the pennission accorded for conducting of a public rneeting 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 ol their subordinates. [fsuch a pennission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, l86l and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Crirninal Procedure rnandates that the complaint in this regard has to be ruade by the public servant concerned 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. In the present case, the charge sheet was hled by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant perrnission fbr the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1Xa) of Code of Crirninal I,rocedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been cornrnitted 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 lndian Penal Code and is not an in<iependent ofthe sarne. Even otherwise, the cynduct of public rneeting at three road junctions or 6 KL.J Crl P No 2576 of2025 a obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is conceraed, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jarn caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been pennitted and if the gathering for that public rneeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circurnstances, none of thc ollences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the cornplaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) olCode of Crirninal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its un- sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail" though thc lst accused alone approached this Court by way of this Crirninal Petition."

11. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2 relying on vadous judgments including N.T. Rama Raor and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Crirrrinal Petition No.15248 o1 2016. decided on 26.10.2016

2. \ \ 1 KL,J () Ir No 257rr o12025 of Haryana v. Bhajan LaP, more parlicularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned 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 concerned Act, providing efficacious 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 exelcising power. under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical ddfect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) ol Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint fileci by V.R.O. and it is against the purporr of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C.

12. In 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 rnade r. (1992) supp. lyrtrs t I I I S KI-.J Crl.P. No.2576o12025 (- 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 rnade in the first infonnation repoft or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first infonnation reporl and other lnaterials. if any, accornpanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offencc, justifying an investigation by police oificers under Section 156(l) of thc Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purvierv o[ Section 155(2) of rhe Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations rnade in the FIR or cornplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the cornntission of any olfence anci rnake out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizabie of'fence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is perrnitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ofthe Code. (5) Where the allegations rnade in the FIR or cornplaint are so absurd and inherently irnprobable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' 9 KL,J C rl.P. No 2576 of2025 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a crirninal proceeding is instituted) to the instrtution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacrous redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a crirninal proceeding is manifestly attended with rnala fide and/or where the proceeding is rnaliciously instituted with an ulterior rnotive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena ol decisions. ) ) 't )

13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Linrited v. The State of Uttar Pradesha,, the Apex Court relerring to its earlier 1 t judgments has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise ol' its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases rvith extreme caution

14. As discussed above, in the present case, the tnvestigating Offlcer did not follow the procedure laid down under Seclion - 155 of o. rrlR 2ozt sc 93 r I l0 KL,J Crl.P. No.2576 of2025 r\ Cr.P.C. and, as such, the proceedings for the olI'ence under Section - 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed against the petitioners lierein.

15. I'he present Crirninal Pctition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.466 of 2023 pending on the file ol Special .ludicial Magistrate of First Class tbr trial ol cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad,, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.2 and 3. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous pctitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shalI stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t\ SECTION OFFICER ]ffi iir:^":"ji [i,j:?:*Xy,.trate of First crass For triar of cases reratins to Mps

2. The J-udicial Firdt Class Magilrate Nidamanoor Nalgonda Drstrict 3. one cc to sRt GUMMALAqTa!KER'CEb;V'ijY""ate [opUCt 4 Jryo CCs to the pUBLtC proSeculOn H;il C;; for the Statri of . Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUT]--- 5. lwo CD Copies VM/PR vr !' I rrvrl vvu' I I To , w I , HIGH COURT DATED:2110212025 ORDER CRLP.No.2576 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE CFiIMINAL PETITION @ ( l\ {.) t, i: ts,H1 T4 c \{ i l .t+ / IA03 0 ?075 Cp )- r-,4TCr \ajP