The High Court · 2025

1. The_ State of Telangana,, Through its Public Prosecutor, The High Court of J udicature at Hyderabad

2. Ch. Ram Narayaan, Age Unknown Occ Sub lnspector of Police, pS Petbasheerbad, ltrlechal Zone, Cyberabad. .,,RESPONDENT/DEFCATO-COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for records in C. C. No, 865 of 2023on the file of lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad against the Petitioner herein and q uash the same l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings in the C. C. No. 865 of ZO23 on the fiie of lX Additional IVletropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad against the Petitioner herein pending disposal of the above Criminal petition, This Petltion corning on for hearing,upon perusing the t\4emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri N NAVEEN KUIVAR Advocate,or the Petitioner and Mr v.Jithender Rao Additional Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and none appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4032 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioners/accused Nos..1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.865 of 2:O23on the file of lX Additional lVletropolitan lVlagistrate at tVledchal, Cyberabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 1gg, 171(B) rlw 171 (E) of lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,)

2. Heard l\/s.Saniya Benazir, learned counsel representing lt/r.N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri. [\4.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15..1 1.2023 at 19.00 hours, de faclo complainant along with his staff while conducting vehicle checking stopped a Creta white color car bearing No.TS09 EC T/R 0610 and when they checked the car, there were three persons in the car and found cash in a rice bag near the legs of the person sitting next to the driver in the front seat, Then they tried to stop the car but the accused persons did not stop, they however chased the car and caught hold of them and collected panchas on the spot and rnterrogated them in the presence of panchas and the accused informed that they actively work for 2 congress party and that their leader Sathish told thern to distribute money to the public who attends meeting and that the cash in the rice bag is the same containing Rs 46,00,000/- Hence they seized the said cash and the said car and took posr;ession of the three accused persons and took to the potice staiion The Sub lnspector of Police, registered a case in Cr'No 975 of 2023 for the offences p.rnishable under sections 188, 171(B) r'w 171 (E) of IPC

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners s;ubmitted that theoffencesallegedarefalse,untenableandillega|andareliable to be quashed. The registration of the impugne'J FIR for the offenceallegeclUnderSectionls8lPCitselfisimpermissiblein law, wherein the section 195(1) Cr P.C mandiates that any complaint'or offence under section 188 of IPC is to be filed by the public servant concerned. lt is further evident that no complaint in writing has been moved by the public servant cc)ncerned as is required lnder section 195(1) Cr P.C. Even assuming the allegations; 10 be true, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners herein confessed that the seized money was being transported for the purpose of distributing the same to the public who attends the meeting, That the said allegatiorr in its entirety does not:onstitute the ingredient of section 171-ll lPC, wherein the essential ingredient is that persons should ha"re been bribed 3 or any money should have been accepted by the people for such purpose of exercising the electoral franchise. Except the confession statements, no material was collected during the investigation by the police in proof of the allegations alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners were falsely implicated in the above crime and have nothing to do with the present crime. lt is not the case of the prosecution that the cash was seized from the petitioners while they are distributing to the voters. Hence, prays the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. ln the light of the above submissions, it is apt to note that section'1 88 of IPC which deals with'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant', 1718 of IPC which deals with 'Bribery' and 171E of IPC which deals with the'punishment for bribery' and the same are extracted as under: "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public 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 cedain order with ceftain property in his possession or under his management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfu y 4 -.i i .}f:i-..... employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term 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 fends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends [c, cause a riot or affray. shall be punished with imprisonntent of either Cescription for a term which may extend to six months cr with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both." '171-,3. Bribery. 1) Whoever i) give:; a gratificatlon to any person with the oltject of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercr:;ed any such right; or ii) acc€pts either for himself or for any other person any gratlfic,ltion as a reward for exercising any such rlght or for lnduclng or attempting to rnduce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bibery: Provlded that a declaration 0f public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section. 2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or ot'fers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be dee,ned to give a gratlficatlon. 3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or atfempts to obh?in a gratlficatlon sha/l be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratificatton as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, er as a rewaro for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratiflcatlon as a reward. " "171-E Funishment for Bribery: Whoever comn,its the offence' cf bribery shall be punished with imprisonrnent of either Cescription for a term which may extend to one year, o, vrith fine, or with both,' Provided thet bribary by treeting shpll be punishad with fine only." 5

7. ln Sunil Kumar Ahuja and another v. State of Telangana and anotherl, it was held as-

8. To attract an offence punishable under Section 171-E ol lpC, the ingredients of Section 171-B of tpc have to be fulfi ed. lf a person gives any gratification to any person for exercising any electoral right or for hawng exercised such right or accepts such amount from any person as a reward for exercising any right or inducing or attempts to induce any person in exercise of such rights amounts to bibery ln the presenf case, the amounts were allegedly found in the possession of the petitioners. The police assume that the said amounts are meant for political leaders to bribe the voters in the ensuing elections of December, 2018. Admittedly, no person was bribed or any money was accepted by those people for such purpose of exercising electoral franchise. For the said reasans, the offence under Section 171-B of IPC is not made out and cansequently the question of prasecuting these petitioners for the offence of bribery puntshable under Section 171-E of IPC does not arise.

8. As per section 195 of Cr.P.C.- 1 . No Court shall take cognizance- a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 1 88 (both inclusive) of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in wri ng of the public servant concerned or of some other public serttant to whom he is admi n i stratively su bo rdi n ate ; b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following section of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, secfions 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199,200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or ' zozs(:) elo (crt.) 301 (TS) .-r- \.'.f'. $sq${ .: \ \. {:. i: \..;..r l 6 - (iii) of an.y cnminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified i,1 sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the compl,aint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Courl as that Court ntay authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Coutt to which that Court is subordinate.

2. Where a complaint has been made by a public se Nant under clause (a) of Sub-Section ('1) any authority to rvhich he is adm nistratively subordrnate may order the withdralval of the complarnt and send a copy of such order to the Court, and upon its receipt by the Court, no furlher proceedings shall be taken on the complaint; Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if :he trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

3. ln clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and inclucles a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, provincial or State Act jf declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of th is section. 4. For the purposes of clause (b) of Sub-Section ('1), a Court sha I be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from appealable decreres oT senlences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Courl from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principai Couft having ordinary original civil jurisrliction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is s;tuate; Provided ihat- a. where appeals lie to more than one Court the Appellate CourT of tnferior jurisdiction shall be the CourT to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; b. where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Cour1, such Court shall be deemed :o be subordirale to the civil or Revenue Couft according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection wrth which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

9. A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners are prosecuted for the offences punishable under S;ections '1 88 and 171-E rl,w 171 B of lPC, lt is not the case that the flying squad has caught hold of the petitioners while distributing the amount to the people, so as to indulge them for the offence under section 7 171-E of lpC and they only caught hold of them while accused were carrying cash in a car and in vrew of the confession, it is assumed as the money is being distributed for electoral purposes to the public in general Further as per the provisions of 195 of Cr.P.C., an offence under section 1BB of IpC must be a private complaint made by a public servant and mere registering of a case by the sub inspector of police and filing a case is unfenable. Even as per sections 171_8 rtw 171E of lpC also the provisions under the said sections are not attracted Hence, no case is made out against the petitioners herein. As such, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.

10. ln view of the judgment cited above and submissions and for the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C.No.865 of 2023 on the fite of lX Additionat Metropolitan Magistrate at tvledchal, Cyberabad are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed sd/- s. MALL]KARJUNA RAO I ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To, i

1. The lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal' Cyberabad

2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Petbasheerbad Cyberabad 3 One CC to SRl. N NAVEEN KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies AG/PSL \qr HIGH COURT r DATED:16/09/2025 l ORDER CRLP.No.4032 of 2024 i ,4. r,'.. t';i () :t/ :; l' ,.itc $ 4 [tT 2[25 o L: ,.1,.,,- ,:' i' CRLP IS ALLOWED I "dfe\-"jk: