The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.s.s., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petifion, the High court may be pleased to stay of all proceedings against the petitioner/Accu""J No. r in cc No. 466 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble special Judicial Magistrate of First clasi For trial of cases relating to Mps and MLAs at Hyderabad for the offences undei Section 188 of IPC pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon hearing lhe arguments of sri GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and the Additionar public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER :: IION'BLE SRI JUSTICI| K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PEI'I]'ION No.3544 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing , for respondents.

2. This application is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against hirn in C.C.No.466 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the aforesaid C.C. The offence alleged him is under Section 188 ot IPC. 2nd respondent lodged a complaint befbre Police, Peddavoora Police Station, alleging that orr 10.04.2021, during elections of Nagarjunasagar Constituency, petitioner along with A.2, being the in-charge ofBJP party lor the said constituency, and others participated in the campaign programme at Vutlapally and Pulicherla Villages without prior permission from the 2 KL, J Crl.P No.3s44 of 202s authorities concemed. Thus, they have violated the Election Rules. Thereupon, Police, Peddavoora Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2021 against petitioner and otl.rers 1br the offence punishable under Section 188 of lPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as L.W.l, Police Constable as L.W.2, Videographer as L.W.3 and Investigating Officer as L.W.4. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against petitioner and others lbr the aforesaid of'tbnce ar.rd the sarle was taken on file by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class fbr Trial o1'Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad, and was nurnbered as C.C.No.466 of 2023. Challenging the proceedings in the said C.C., petitioner/A. I filed tl.re present Criminal Petition.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that petitioner and other-s have conducted election campaign without obtaining prior permission and thus, they have violated the Model Codc of Conduct. In the complaint lodged by 3 KL, J Crl.P.No.35a4 of 2025 2nd respondent, there are specific allegations levelled against petltloners. 5 In view of the above submissions, it is apt to note that Section 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant' and the sarne is extracted as under: "188. Disobediencc to order duly promulgated by public servant.-Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgatc 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, ifsuch disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction. amoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with hne which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobcdience oauses or trends to cause danger to human life, health or sal'ety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished rvith imprisonrnent of €ither description for a term which may extend to six months, or with hne which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-It is not necessary that the ollender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows ol the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a I 4 KL, .' C.l.l, I,o.3s44 of 2O25 religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingl-v disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riol. A has c,rmnritted the offence defined in this section."

6. [t is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The Statc of A.P., rep. l)1, Public Prosecutorr, while dcaling with the offences under Sections 188 and 283 of IPC. the learned Single Judgc ol'erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: "5) Ercrr il'the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions c,ontrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specilied place is true, such a direction under Section 30 ol the l'olicc Act, 186l could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the Distnct but not by any of their subordinates. If such a pennission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, I 861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) ofCode of Crinrinal Proccdure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be madc by the public servant concemed or some other person to whorn such a public servant is administratrvely subordinatc to enable any Court to take cognizance of arr offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspcctor of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the corlplaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory Criminal Petition No.532l of2009- decided on 17.09.2009 I I 5 KL, J Crl.P.No.35:14 of2O25 provision of Section 195(l)(a) of Code of Crirrinal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence allegcd to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged ofl'ence under Section t88 ot'Indian Penil Codc an<l is not an independent of the same. Even otherwisc, tlre conduct of public meeting at three rord junctions or 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 concemed, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the lndian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traUic jarn caused by the road show. But, when the oonduct olthe 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 traific, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rca to construe the existence ofan offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offbnces alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Crin.rinal 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 Criminal Petition."

7. In Thota Chandra Sekhar \,. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari 6 KL, J C.l Ir No.354.r of 2025 a) District2, rclying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao (supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Suprenre Cour.t in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, more particularly. guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted lll 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 rernedy to redress the grievance of the party, the learned Single Judge of High Courl of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of I Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quasl.red the proceedings in the C.C. 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 perrnission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint liled by V.R.O. and it is against the purporl of Section l!rS1111u; of Cr.P.C. Criminal Petition No.15248 of20l6, decided on 26.10.2016 ( 1992) Supp. I SC(r 335 \ 7 KL, J crl.P.No.3544 o{ 2025

8. 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 genulneness or otherwise of the allegations rnade in the cornplaint or in FIR. In the said judgment, the Apex Court laid down cerlain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same read as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first infomation rcport or the complaint. even if they are takcn at their lace 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 information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(l) of the Codc cxcepr under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section I 55(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in thc FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppo( ofthe same do not disclose the commission ol anv offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable oflence but constitute only a non-cognizable I I B KL, J C.I.P.No.3544 oI2025 (. offencc, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) ofthc Code. (5) Wherc the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inl,erently improbable on the basis of which no prudcnt person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufllcrenl ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Whcrc there is an exprcss legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 tbr the grievance ofthe aggrieved party. (7) \Arherc a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala lide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously institutcd with an ulterior rnotivc for wreaking vengeance on thc accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." The said pliuciple was reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions

9. As discusscd supra, in the present case, the Investigating Officer did not tbllow the procedure laid down under Section 155 of Cr.P.('. and as such, continuation of the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against petitioner/A.1 is an abuse of process of law. 'lhcrefbre, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against petitioner/A.I are liable to be quashed. 9 KL, J Crl.P.No.354t of 2025

10. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.466 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class 1br Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in respect of petitioner/A. l only' I

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// J ECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs at Hyderabad.

2. The Station House Officer, Peddavoora Police Station, Nalgonda Dishict 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SRl. GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies GE/orw HIGH COURT DATED: 1110312025 l ORDER GRLP.No.3544 of 2025 .{ ,\e STAT€ ) C) L) \ 19 hPq fl25 a i. .t' OI,sepa, ..,1 ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION @ \?d \\10