Criminal Petition No. 3546 of 2023 · The High Court · 2025

Heard Mr.G.Bhaskar Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner/accused No.l and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for responder l No.l- State.

2. This Crimrnal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNIiS), to quash the procet:dings against the petitioner/accus,:tl No.l in C.C.No.46 o1' 2024 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial o1' Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is accused No.l in the aioresaid C.C. The olfences alleged against the petitioner are' under Sections 188 ol'IPC and Section 51(b) of the l)isaster Management Act, 2005 (for short 'DM Act, 2005'). 2

4. On the complaint dated 28.10.2021 of respondent No.2, Police, Kamalapur Police Station, Warangal District, registered a case in Crime No.2l5 of 2021 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

5. In the complaint dated 28.10.2021, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are that on 28.10-2021 at about 06.30 P.M. the petitioner/accused No.1 carne to the house of accuse No.2 situated at Uppal village. On coming to know that respondent No.2 along with FST Team went to the house of accused No.2 and on enquiry, accused No.2 informed to respondent No.2 that accused No.l came to his house. There were three cars and some motorcycles in front of the house of accused No'2' There are many activists of BJP Party gathered in front of the house of respondent No.2. Thereafter, accused No' I went to the house of accused No.4 and accused No.5 along with accused No.3 and others. Thus, the petitioner and other accused violated Covid-l9 Rules without wearing masks 3 r also violated the Model Code of Conduct. Respondent r.lo.2 has requested the Station House Officer, Karnalapur Police Station, to take action against the petitioneriaccused No. I and others.

6. During th€ cours€ of investigation, the lnvestigating Officer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW.l, Rajesh, PC-816 of Hasanparthy police S..ation as LW.2, Surenderr, PC-109 of Nekkonda police Station. LWs.4 and 5 are panch witnesses. On consideration of the said statements recorded under section 16r of thc rCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Investigating OfTicer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. The sirme was taken on file as C.C.No.46 of 2024 against the p,etitioner for the aforesaid offences.

7. Petitioner filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in rhe aforesaid C.C.No.46 of 2024. 4

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contents of the complaint dated 28.I0.202L and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C lack ingredients of aforesaid offences. There were no orders issued by the competent authorities. Therefore, commission of offence under Section 188 of IPC does not anse. Referring to Section 60 of the DM Act, learned counsel for the petitioner would subrnit that the police cannot register FIR against the petitioner for the offence under Section 5l(b) of the DM Act in view of bar under Section 60 of the DM Act. Petitioner herein was Member of Legislative Assembly at that relevant point of time and presently, he is a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha). Therefore, continuation ofproceedings against him in the said C.C. is an abuse of process of law.

9. Whereas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that there are serious allegations against the petitioner herein and the petitioner conducted campaigning o 5 by using vehicles without obtaining prior permisriron and thereby they have violated the Model Code of Oonduct. There are also specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. The contentions of the petitioner are ck-.fences which he has to take during trial and this Court cannot consider the same in a petition filed under Section . 52g 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.

10. In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that Section 5t(b) and 60 of DM Act,2005 and the same are extracted under: 5 I . Punishment for obstruction, etc. -\ hoever, without reasonable cause- (b) refrrsed to comply with the direction givel by or on behalf of the Central Government or thr: State Go vemment or the National Executivt: Committee or the State Executive Committee o:. the District Authority under this Act, shall or. conviction be punishable with imprisonment for r ,. I 6 tenn which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imrninent danger thereof, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. "60. Cognizance of offences - No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by- (a)the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other aulhority or. offrcer authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Govemment, as the case may be; or (b)any person u,ho has given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribcd, of the alleged ollbnce and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authorify, the Central Government, thd State Govemment, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as aforesaid.

11. In the complaint dated 2B.lO.2O2l and statements of LWs.l to 3, the ingredients of Section 51(b) are lacking. In the charge sheer dated t5.03.2021 filed by the Investigating Officer, there is specific rnention that during G 7 course of investigation, it is clearly establistred that Section 5l(b) c'f the DM Act is not attractable. In l.he light of the said submissions the proceedings agrtinst the petitioner in (lC No.46 of 2024 for the offence under Section 5l(b) of the DM Act are hereby quashed.

12. Section 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedienct: to order duly promulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as under: "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgatrd by public servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order prc,mulgated by a public servant lawfi:lly empowered to promulgate such order, he is direc:ed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain orrier with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if sur:h disobedience causes or tends to cause obstructi,)n, annoyanc,s or injury, or risk of obstructi,tn, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonm,:nt for a temr which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, ,rr with both: and if such disobedience causes or trerrcls F cause rlanger to human life, health or safety, ,rr B causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or rvith both. Explanation.-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which lre disobeys, and that his disobedience ptoduces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a cenain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."

13. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr, while dealing with the offences under Sections 188 and283 of IPC, the r. Criminal Petition No.5323 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 -.-a , I ) 9 learned Single .Iudge of erstwhile High Court of ,\ndhra Pradesh held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that the petition:r' conducted public meetings at three road junctiort. contrary tc,the permission accorded for conductirrg of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Polir:,-' Act, 1861 could have been given only by th,.: Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent ,r1' Police of the District but not by any of their subordinat,:s. If such a permission is granted und :r Section 30 of the Police Act, 186l and is violatel, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedu'c mandates that the complaint in this regard has to t,t-' made by the public servant concerned or some oth,)r person to whom such a public servant i:i administralively subordinate to enable any Court rt, take cognizance ofan offence under Section 188 o1' Code of Criminal Procedure. [n the present cas j the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector ol Police, who could not have been the authority to grant pennission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violaticrr of the mandatory provision of Section 195(lXa) ot Code of Criminal Procedure. 10 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 obstruction to the traffic could not have bebn considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the trafhc jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting 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 circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its un- sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have 11 to fail, though the lst accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal petition.,, t4 juduments In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of z\ndhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., p.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2, relying on various including N.T. Rama Rao (supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, rnore particularly, guideline No.6, rvhich says that where there is an express legal bar engralted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemeC 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, the learned Single Judge of l{igh Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Anlhra Pradesh at Hyderabad quashed the proceedings in the {, C. :. -. ( r992) Supp. I SCC 3ls Criminal pelirion No. 15248 ol ' 201 6 , decided on 26 .I O .2O t6 It* !t F L2 mentioned therein by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is 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(l(a) of Cr.P.C.

15. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare 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 in the complaint or in FIR. In the said judgrnent, the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same read as underi "( I ) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are 13 taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence r,r make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying tht: FIR do not ,lisclose a cognizable offence, justifyin5 an investigation by police officers under Section 156(l) of tire Code except under an order of a Magistrate v,ithin the purvrew ofSection 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of thr: same do not disclose the commission of any offen,:e and rhake out a case against the allegations accused. (4) Where the in the FIR do not constrtute a cognizable offence but constifute only a non-cognizabl: offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proce,eding against the accused. lu)*"t. there is an express legal bar engrafted in nny of the provisions of the Code or the Act ll* ,l l4 concemed (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 Act concemed, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the 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 to spite him due to private and personal grudge." The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena ofdecisions,

16. In the light of the above discussion and the principle Iaid down in the aforesaid decisions, continuation of proceedings in C.C. No.46 of 2024 against the petitioner is an abuse ofprocess oflaw and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section - 528 of BNSS. 15 l7' Accordingty, the present criminal petition is illlowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.46 of 2024 pendirg on the file of special Judicial Magistrate of First class for trial of cases relating to Mps and MLAs at Hyderabad, art: hereby quashed against the petitioner _ accused No.l only. Miscellaneous applications, if any pendinl;, shall stand closed. / SD/.A.SFIEENIVASA REDDY ASSII;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \i \l SECTION OFFICER To, 1' rhe :ff"ilil3:fiil[?gistrate or First class tor triat ]i c'ases reratins to

2. The ll Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurabrrd. 3. The Station House Officer, Kamalapur, Warangal District . 4. One CC to Sri. r3ummaila Bhasker Reddy, Advocate [OpLtC] t trb",f)ublic Prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana, ffi":r"r:? 6. Two CD Copies PSK /PSL k L HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 it. j I.'{) € tJI. !,i ,l t-) B1 T * FD s,.. ;i ((.( Z C)}. ORDER CRLP.No.3546 of 2025 g (.* /<r ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL PETITION