The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the personal appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in C.C.No.447 ol 2024 on the file of Special JFCM, Excise Judge, Nalgonda, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T V RAMANA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER =wY IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4900 of 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao. learned r:oLrnsel tbr petitioner/accused No.3, Smt. Shalini Saxena, iearncd counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing fo' respondent No. I State and Sli Pulimamidi Shashidhar Rerldl', learnecl counsel fol respondent No.2

2. This petition is frled under Section 528 olBhalativa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceerlings against petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.447 of 2024 on the trle of the Special Judicial Magistrate ol First Class for Excist; Ollences - cum - II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

3. The petitioner herein is accused No.3. The offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section 171-8 read with Section 171-E of IPC.

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Police, Bhongir Town Police Station, registered a case in Crinre ).1o.414 of 2023 against petitioner herein for the aforesaid of'fbnce 2 KL, J Crl.P.No.4900 oi2025

5. In the complaint dated 24.11.2A23, respondent No.2 alleged that petitioner through his Personal Assistant i.e., Miryala Ravindar, offered an amount of Rs.5,00,0001- to respondent No.2 to change his political party. The said Miryala Ravindar, has paid an amount of Rs.4,68,500i -. Earlier on I 8. I 112023, the same offer was given respondent No.2 to the petitioner at thc house of Dr.Amarender. Petitioner met respondent No.2 on 18.i1.2023 at the house of Dr.Amarender. On 2l.ll.zAn, the said Miryala Ravindar handed over the amount to respondent No.2, at Vivera Hotel, Bhongir. Thereiore, he requesled ttre Station House Officer to take action against the petitioner.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Otficer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW. 1, LW.2 P.Rarnesh/eye-witness and LWs.3 to 5 are circumstantial witnesses. LWs.6 to 9 are panch witncsses. LWs.10 and 11 are Investigating Officers. On consideration of the said statements, Investigating Officer laid charge-sheet against the petitioner herein. The same was taken on f|re vide C.C.l{o.447 of 2024

7. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44l of 2024 -. . r,rcE.*' ' ./ -"ri z ., I{L, J CrL.P \o 4900 or 2025 contending that the contents of the complaint dated 24.11 .2023 and the statements of LWs. I to 5 lack ingredients of the aforesaid offences.

8. The atlegation against the petitioncr herein is that he gave money to respondent No.2 to change the political party and therefore, he l.ras committed an offence under Section l7l B of IPC.

9. ln the light of the said submissions, it is relevanl to note that Section 17lB of IPC deals with 'bribery' and it is extracted below "171B. Briherl, (l) Whoever: (i) glt'cs o gratification b any person h)ith the ol)iect of indtrcing him or an.y other persort to exercise any, elt'clr:ral right or of rawarding ary person t'br having exercis,'d Lu\' such right; or ('ii) accepts either for himsef or for ttny otlrcr par:ort cmy gratification as a reu'ard.for exercising uny sLtc,'t riqhl or .fbr inducing or attempting to induce any otlrcr pcrson to exercise any such right, commits the oLfence o.f'bt'iLtery'; Protided lhat a declaration of public policy or a prottise ofpublic aclion shall not be an o.ffence under lhi.s se,:tion. (2) ,1 per,son who offers, or agrees to give, or olibr.s or dttempts to procure, a gratification shall be dcer,rcd to give a gratificcttion. (3) A person who obtains or agrees lo accept or altet pts to obtain a graliJicatiott shall be deemed to acL::apt o gratiJication, and a person who accepts a gratiJication a.s a motive for doing what he does nol intend to do, tr os a reu,ard.for doing what he has not done, shall be dee'ned to have acceptcd the gratification as a reward. " I i i l i ' i i 'I I 4 KL, J Crl.P No 49OO ol2O25

10. Section 17lA(b) of IPC deals with electoral right, which means the right of a person to stand for, or not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate, or to vote or refrain lrom voting at an election

11. Likewise, Section 17lE of IPC deals with punishment for bribery. To attract the offencc under Section l7l B of IPC, one has to give gratification to arly person with the object of inducing or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right

12. As discussed supra, rn the present case there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has offered gratification to respondent No.2 with the object of inducing or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person Ibr having exercised any such right.

13. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 rvould contend that respondent No.2 has already hled petition before the trial Court under Section 190 read with 173(8) of Cr.P.C. to reject the charge- sheet and direction to police to conduct further investigation. But in the said petition, respondent No.2 did not contend that police 5 KL, J Cr P.\0..1900 o12025 offered the said amount to exercise his vote in favour of the petitioner. His allegation is the petitioner had paid the said amount through his Pcrsonal Assistant, Mirya1a Ravindar to change his party. Therefore, it is not an offence under Section l7l B of IPC Thus, contents of complaint of respondent No.2 and statetnents of the witnesses recorded under Section 16l of Cr.P.C. Iacks the ingredients of Section 17lB of IPC.

14. In State of Haryana Bhajan Lall, the ,\pex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercisecl very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the ralest of rare CASCS While exarnining a complaint, quashing of which ;s sought, CoLlft cannot cnrbalk upon an enquiry as to the r,:liability or genuineness or other-wise of the allegations made in the complaint or in FlR. In the said.ludgment, the Apex Court laid dorvn certain guidelir-res/parameters fbr exercise of powers under Ser:tion 482 ol Cr.P.C. The same read as under "(l ) Whcre the allegations made in the first infotmation report or the coniplaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facic constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. ( l9erlsuqg I SCC 315 l } , I.li iIt I 6 KL. J (]rl P No 49OO of2025 n (2) Where the allegations in the first infonnation report and cther rnaterials, if any, accompanyrng thc FIR do not disclose a cognizable otfer-rce, justilying an investigation by policc officers undcr Section 156(l) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (31Where the unconlrovened allegations rnade in thc FIR or complaint and the evidcnce collected in suppott of the same do not disclose the commissiou of any offence and make out a casc against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in thc "FIR do not constitute a cognizable offcnce but collstitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigatiou is perrnitteC by a police ofliccr without an ordcr of a Magistratc as contetlplatcd under Section 155(2) of tlie Codc. (5) Where the ailcgations made in thc FIR or complaitrt are so absurd and inherently irnprobable on the basis of which no prudent person oan ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding agaiust the accttsed. (6) Where therc is an express legal bar cr.rgrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concemed (uuder which a crirnina[ procceding is instihrtcd) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where thcre is a specihc provision in thc Code or Act conccmed, providing efficacious redress for the grievancc ofthe aggrieved par1y. (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 vcttgeance on the accused and with a view to spitc hirn due to prlvate an<l personal grudge." 7 KL, J C I P ',10.4()00 oi202s The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Courl irt a catena of decisions.

15. As discussed supra, at the cost of repetition, in thc present case, even according to the complaint of respondenL No.2 dated I I

24.11.2023 ancl his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., petitioner off'ered an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through his Personal Assistant i.e., Miryala Ravindar to respondent No.2 to change his politicat affiliation party. There is no gratilication offered by either petitioner or his assistant with an object to induce respondent No.2 to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any pers,)n fbr having exercised any such right. Therefbre, the contents made in the complairrt dated 24.11.2023 and statcments of LWs.1 to 5 lack the ingredients of Section 1718 of IPC. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against petitioner in the aforesaid C.C. is' an abuse ol process of law. Therefore, proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against petitioner/accused No.3 are liable to be quashed.

16. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.447 of 20i'.4 on the hle of the Speciat Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Offences - cum - II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, are hereby quashed against petitioner/accused No.3 only. ',1 1l B KL, J Crl.P No.+9O0 ot2025 {'l 1'7 . Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed Miscellaneous applications, il any pending, shall stand closed. To, SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY SSITANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Judicial of First Class (for Proh. & Excise Offences) cum ll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Nalgonda.

2. The Station House Officer, Bhongir Town Potice Station, Yadadri Bhongir District.

3. One CC to SRl. T V Ramana Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Sri. Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana

6. Two CD Copies GIUPSL HIGH COURT DATED:02 t0712025 rHE SI,t ,,( T<o -) ,.) !) ( 10 SEP 2025 * D, ORDER CRLP.No.4900 of 2025 THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED