The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

2. H. Venkateshwarulu, Age. Unknown, lnspector of Police, Hayathnagar PS, R/o. Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana. ...Respondents/ De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the F.l.R. No. 1323 of 2023 d1.2211112023 on the file of Police Station, Hayat Nagar against the Petitioners herern and same. LA. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in the F.l R. No. 1323 of 2023 on the file of Police Station, Hayat Nagar against the Petitioners herein pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crrminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Naveen Kumar. Advocate for the Petitioner and S,ri M.Ramachandara Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER ----- HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4033 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.548 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171(B) rlw 171 (E) of lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Section 123 (1) (A) of the representation of the people act, 1951 (for short'RP Act').

2. Heard tVls.Niharika Ture Rao, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondenlState and perused the record

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2023 al 19.00 hours, de facto complainant along with his staff while conducting vehicle checking tried to stop a Hyundaii20 car bearing No.AP 23 AG 3719 and Toyota lnnova car bearing No.TS 13 G T/R 7153 but the accused persons did not stop, they however chased the car and caught hold of them. When they checked the cars, there were three persons in the Hyundai car and on enquiry they stated their names and that they were transporting money of an amount 2 of two crores from Hayathnagar to Choutuppal with escort of the persons in lnnova car. On that lnspector of police taken them into custody and informed superiors and summoned two mediators and conducted confession and seizure panchanama. During confession all the five accused persons confessed that on the instructions of accused No.6, they all together were transporting the said money for election purpose. Hence they l;eized the cash, phones and the said cars and took possession of all the accused persons and took to the police station. The Sub lnspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.1323 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections '188, 171(B) rlw 171 (E) of IPC and Section 123 (1) (A) of RP Act

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the offences alleged are false, untenable and illegal and are liable to be quashed. The registration of the impugned FIR for the offence alleged under Section 188 IPC itself is impermissible in law, wherein the section 195(1) Cr.P.C. mandates that any complaint for 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 r;oncerned as is required under section '195(1 ) Cr.P.C. Even assuming the allegations to be true, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners herein confessed that the seized money was being i 3 transported for the purpose of distributing the same to the public who attends the meeting. That the said allegation in its entirety does not constitute the ingredient of section 171-B lPC, wherein the essential ingredient is that persons should have been bribed or any money should have been accepted by the people for such purpose of exercising the electoral franchise. Further, the respondent authorities without examining the tenability of the allegations have mechanically registered the offence under section 123 of the RP Act. lt is settled law that section 123 of RP Act would only amount to corrupt practice, providing a cause of action for filing of an election petition under Section 81 read with section 100 and '101 of the RP Act, there can be no penal action initiated by way of criminal prosecution. 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. It 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 I I

6. ln the ight of the above submissions, it is apt to note that section 1BB of IPC which deals with'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant', 1718 of IPC whrch deals with 'Bribery' and 171E of IPC which deals with the 'punishment for bribery and the same are extracted as under "lSS Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant- Whoever. knowing that, by en order promulgated by a public servant lavvfully empotvered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a ceftain act. or to take certain order with cedain pnperly in hls possesslon or under his management dlsobe,/s 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 lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonme,nt 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 tends to caus'2 danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray. shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extentl to six months, or with fine which may extend to one lhousand rupees, or with both." "171 -B Bribery: 1) Whoever i) gives a gratification to any person with the ?bject of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or ii) accepts either for hrmself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any sucf: right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other lterson to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery: 5 Provided that a declaration of pub/ic policy or a promise of public action sha// not be an offence under this section. 2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or aXempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification. 3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification/ and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for dolng what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratlfication as a reward. " "171-E. Punishment for Bribery.. Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only."

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 of lPC, the ingredients of Section 171-B of IPC have to be fulfilled. lf a person gives any gratification to any person for exercising any electoral right or for having exercised such right or accepts such amount from any person as a reward for exercising any right or inducing or aftempts to induce any person in exercise of such rights amounts to bribery. ln the present case, the amounts were allegedly found in the possesslo, 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 maney was accepted by those people for such purpose of exercising electoral franchise. For the said reasons, fhe offence under Section 171-B of IPC is not made out and consequently the questicn of prosecuting these pet;tioners for the offence of bribery punishable under Section 171-E of IPC does not arise. B As per section 195 of Cr.P.C.- ' :o:;i:; eLo (crl.) lo 1 ( t-s) I 6 '1 d 1 . No Court shall take cognizance- a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to cornmit, such offence, (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence. except on the complaint in writing of the public seNant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is a d m i n i st ra t ive ly s u bo rd i n ate. b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the ,Ttllowing section of the lndian Penal Code (45 ot 1860) namely, secflons 193 to 1 96 (both inclusive), 1 99,200, 205 to 21 1 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is a'leged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any prt>ceeding in any Coui, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463. or punishable under serction 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committei in respect of a document produced or ,qiven in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or altempt to commit, or the abetment of. any offence specifietl in sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the con.plaint in writing of that Coud or by such officer of the CoLfi1 as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Ccuri to which that Court is subordinate.

2. Where a complaint has been made by a public :;eruant under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) any authority t:, which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of suah order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedrngs shall be taken on the complaint; Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered f the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluderd.

3. ln cla use (b) of Sub-Section ( 1 ), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, provinci,:l or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. 1 For rhe purposes of clause (b) of Sub-Sectior (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the court to I I 7 which appeals ordinarily lie from appealable decrees or senlences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Couft from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate; Provided that- a. where appeals lie to more than one Courl, the Appellate Couri of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Coutl to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; b. where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court. such Courl shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or Revenue Couft according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

9. As per section 123 of RP Act-

123. Corrupt practices.-The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:- (1) "Bribery" that is to say- (A) any gift. offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the cansent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing- (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to- (i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature: or (ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting; t t

10. A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners are prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 1BB and 171-E rlw 171B 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 171-E o'f IPC and they only caught hold of them while accused were carrying cash in a car and in view 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 B Cr.P.C., an offence under section 1BB of IPC mus. be a private complaint made by a public servant and mere n:gistering of a case by the sub inspector of police and filing a case is untenable Even as per sections 171-B rlw 171E of IPC and 123 of RP Act also the provisions under the said sections are not attracted Hence, no case is made out against the petitioners herein. As such, the c;ontinuation of criminal proceedingr; against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law

11. ln view of the judgment cited above and sutlmissions and for the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.S4B of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, C;yberabad at Hayathnagar are hereby quashed Miscellaneous applications, if any pendin1l, shall stand closed SD/- HMED ABDULLA KHAN S I;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i,SECTION OFFICER

1. The XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayatnagar' 2. The Station House officer, Hayathnagar Police station. Rangareddy District. 3. One CC to Sri N Naveen Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies. YtR/PsLW,/ \ To, HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER CRLP.No.4033 ot 2024 o() t * ll-1 tAS 1 7 0[I 2!25 F. tc"iiti CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. @