Criminal Petition No. 5029 of 2025 · The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Mr.G.Bhaskar Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner/sole accused and Srnt.Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor lbr respondent No.1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is frlcd under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/solc accused in C.C.No.460 of 2023 on the file of thc learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 269 and 188 of IPC and Section 57 of the I i i i I I I I I I I I i I I I 2 : Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for shoft 'DM Act, 200,s').

4. On tlrc complaint dated 10.04.2021 of respondent No.2, Police, Peddavoora Policc SlrLtion. Nalgonda Districl,, registercd a case in Crime No.12rr ot202l against the petitioner lbr the aforesaid offences

5. Ir the complaint dated 10.04.202l.. the allegations Ieveled against the pctitioner are that on 10.04.2021 at about 07.30 P.M. the petitioner and others have conducted pubhc rnccting in Utlapally Village, Pedrlavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District, in view of bye-electic,ns 2021. Thus, the petitioner and others have violated Covid-19 Rules without wearing masks, without ma ntaining social distancc and also violated the Modcl Clrcle of Conduct Respondent No.2 requested the StatiorL House Officer, Peddav,:ora Police Station. to takc aclion against the petitioner and others. E :,: { II * 3 i, { 4 I I , i : : a 3

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the sjaternents of respondent No.2 as LW.1, Abbagani Sornaiah, PC-1816 of Vemulapally Police Station as LW.2 and Sk.lbrahirn, Videographer as LW.3. On consideration of the said statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Investigating Oftlcer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. lhe sanre was taken on file as C.C.No.460 of 2023 against the petitioner fbr the aforesaid offences

7. Petitioner filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. contending that in view of the bar under Section 60 of DM Act, 2005, Police can't prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 57 of DM Act, 2005 by registering Crime No.l26 of 2021, which is in violation of the procedure laid down under Section 60 of DM Act,2005. :i J ti! -I 4

8. Learned counsel for the petitioncr o )lltended that the contcnls of the complaint and statemr: rts ol witnesses recorde'd under Section 161 of Cr.P.C [a,:k ingredients of Scctior 269 of IPC. Petitioner herein 'r'as Mernbcr of Legislativc Assembly at that relevant proint of tirne and presently, he is a Member of Parliament iLok Sabha). He firlsely irnplicated in the said ,)ase. -lhereforc, continuation of procecdings against him :n thc said C.C. is an abusc ofprocess oflaw

9. L;arned counsel representing leamcd Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would fairly ,:cntend that there is a pr,rcedure prescribed under SectiorL 60 ol DM Act, 2005 t,r proseclrte the petitioner for th.: off-ence under Scction 57 of DM Act, 2005. With rcgarl to Section 269 of IPC'. she contended that Governrr ent has issued guidelines with regard to Covid-19 vide G.O.Ms.No.68, General Administration (Covid), dat;d 21.03.2021. Thereftrre,, the contents of complaint dateri 10.04.202I and { i* I i I t & , , t , ' i I ; I I I a 5 statements of LWs.l to 3 prima facie constitute the offence under Section 269 of IPC

10. In the light of the said subrnissions, it is relevant to note that Sections 57 and 60 of DM Act, 2005 and thc salne are extracted under: "57. Pcnalty for contravention of any order rcgarding requisitioning - It' any persotl corltravenes any order madc under section 65, he shall be punishable with imprisonmcnt for a term wtrich may extend to one year or with fine or with both. (r0. Cognizancc of offenccs - No Court shall take cognizancc of an offence under this Act ercept on a conrplaint made by- (a)the National Authority, the State Authority, tlre Central (iovernment, the State Covernmetlt, the Distlict Authority or any other authority or olficer authorised in this behalf by that Authority or Government, as the case may be; or (b)any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in the rnanner prescribed, of the alleged oflence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority, the 6 (lentral Govelnrrent, the State Gor emntent, thc District Authority or any other autho.ity or officer authorised as aforesaid." I l. Irr the present case, ou the cour tlaint lodgecl by rcsponclcnt No 2, Police have registere(l a case in f.riruc No. I2(r of 2021 against the petitioner for he of-fence undcr Scctiorr -57 ol DM Act, 2005. Thercfort . thc sarnc is ir.r violation of Scction 60 of DM Act, 2005.

12. S,-'ction ltt8 of IPC deals with.disolrcdicncc to orilcr duly prrntulgated by a public servant, rnd the same is cxtractcrl as under: " lti8. Disobedicnce to order duly pr omulgatcd bl public servant.-Whoever, knou.in;.t that, by.an or-rlcr plonrulgatcd by a public scrviilrt lari,tully c ugrou,cled to prornr.rigate such order, [re is dir.ected to abstain ll'orn a certain act, or to take c.r.rtain rtrclcr u ilh certain property in his possession rt. uncjcr his rranagetnent, disobeys such direction, shall. if-such clrsobcdicnce causes or tends to cause cbstruction annoyancc or injury, or risk of :bstr-uction, annoyancc ol injury, to any persor Iau,lully elnployecl, bc punished with simple in.1 ,ri5sn,r.,.r, .-t3B. .1 7 tbr a term which rnay extentl ttt one month or rvith fine which may extcnd to two hundred rupees, or' rvith both; and if such disobedience causes or ttends tc.' cause danger to liuman lil'c, health or saf'ety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or afh'ay, shall be punished with imprisont.nent of either dcscription for a terrn which may extend to six months, or with llne which n-ray extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. FJxplanation. It is not nccessaly that thc ol-fLndcl should intend to producc harni, or' conternplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sulficient that he knows of the ordcr which he disobeys, and that his disobediencc produces, or is likely to produce, haul. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawlully empou,ered to promulgate such older, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causcs dangcl of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section." II T I * i iI I {i I I : A c T : { ; * I ! : I t I I t i t i i I I I I I : I I I I ) ! i I I t I ,? i I B 4

13. h is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The Statc of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr, rvhile clealing rvith thc ofl'cnccs under Sections 188 an<l 283 of IPC. the learnccl Singlc Judgc of crstwhile High C'ourt of Andhra Pradesh hcld as undcr' "5) Even if thc allegation that tlrl pctitioner' r:onducted lrublic rlcctings at thfee rr,lLcl .juuctions (iontrary to the pcrntission accorded tbr contlucting ol' a public Lneeting only at one specilicd plac:e is 1t'uc. such a direction under Section 30 r 1' thc Police .\ct, l8(rl could har,e been given,rrly by the Superintcndent or thc Assistant Supelintcn<lent of l'olice of the District but not by zrrrv ol' their :,uboldinal-cs. I{- such a permission is gr.rrrtecl uudcr licction 30 of thc Policc Act, 186 I an<l is violatcd, ljcction I 95 ( 1 ) (a) ol' Code of Criurina I l)roccdulc nrandatcs that thc cotnplaint in this regir'<1 has to be rnarle by the publio scrvant concerned or solne other l)crson to whom such a public scrvant is a cinrinistlatively subordinate to enable I ry (ior"rrt to take cognizance of an of-fence under Ser tion 188 of ('odc of Cliurinal Ploccdure. In the p L.scut case, thc chargc sheet rvas filed by the Sub Inspcctor of r. Crinrinal I'cti{ion No.5l2l o12009. <lccidcd on l?.09.2009 tl./ /./ .4.. 9 Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public rneeting and therclore, the complaint/chargc sheet is in violation of the rnandatory provision of Section 195(l)(a) ol Code of Criminal Proccdure 6) 'l-hat apart, the ofl-ence alleged to have been cornmitted under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the pctitioncrs and others is obviously in corlsequence to the alleged olfence under Section I88 of Indian Penal Codc and is not an independcnt of thc same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at threc road junctions or obstruction to the tlaffic could not have been consideted as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so tar 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 traffic jarn 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 rneeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to constlue the existence of an off'cnce punishable under Indian Penal Code' Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any t $ s ,i i., I t ' t t t t t i t t i !t I t I I I : . I* I . l I i I i i 10 view, the complaint/charge sheet bcinl_r in violation 'tf Section 195 (l) (a) of Code of Crirninal Procedure, has to fa il. 7) As the complaint has lailed due to its un- :rustainability, the proceedings in their entiret),have ro lail. 11,or*n thc lst accused alone a|P.oaclrctl tlris lJourt by way of this Crirninal Petition."

14. In Thota Chandra Sekhar r,. The State of Andhra Pradcsh, through S.II.O., P.S. trllur-l Rural, West Godavari District2, r'clying on vat'lous .judgrnents includirrg N.T. Rama Rao (supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Suprcme Court in State of Haryana v. Bha.jan Lall. lnorc particularly, gLriclc ine No.6, which says thrrt where there is an exprcss [ega; bar engrafted in any of thc provisions of thc Code or th,: concerned Act (undcr which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the pro;cedings and/or where thcre is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious rem,:cly to redress the

2. Crimrllal Pclition No.15248 of 20l6. clecided or 26 t0 2016 t. ltSS:; Supp. r SCC 315 '::': 11 grievance of the party, the leamed Single Judge of High Court of Judicature for the States of Tel anganaand Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad quashed the proceedings in the C.C. l mentioned therein by exercising power under Section 4g2 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. l5 With regard to the offence under Section 269 of IpC, it deals rvith neglect act likely to cause disease dangers to life and the same is relevant and it is extracted below: "269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life - Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.,' t2

16. It is relevant to note that Govemment issued Covid- l9 guidelines vide G.O.Ms.No.68, General ^r\dministration (Covid)" dated 21.03.2021. Vide the aforqsa d guidelines, the Govemment directed all the people to nraintain social distance, wear masks and not to gather. Petii:oner violated the said guidelines and he has conducted putr ic meeting in violation of the said guidelines

17. It is also relevant to note that the statement of Videographer - LW.3 is very specific with regard to the same. He has also refemed the name of the lretitioner and alleged that petitioner is not wearing mask a rd conducted public meeting. He has also taken videograplrs. Therefore, petitioner can't contend that the said complaint and statements of LWs.l to 3 lack ingredients o'Section 269 of IPC.

18. Leamed counsel for the petitioner placrd reliance on Kantamaneni Ravishankar v. The State of Andhra |4t 13 Pradesh Dr.Dasoju Shravan Kumar and others v 4 N.Narenders and Gurram Venkat Ramana v. The State of Telangana6. In the said cases, there are no specific allegations against the accused that they have violated the guidelines issued by the Government with regard to Covid-19 t9. In the present case, prima Jacie, there are specific allegations against the petitionel that he along with others conducted pubtic meeting without wearing mask, maintaining social distance as per the guidelines issued by the Government t'ide G.O.Ms.No.68' General Administration (Covid), dated 27 .03.2021. Therefore, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner has to face trial in respect of offence under Section 269 of IPC and take all the aforesaid defences before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. l Order dated 26.08.2020 passed in W.P.No E890 of2020 by the High Court of Andtua Pradesh. t order dared 05.06-2023 ol'this Court in Crl.P.No.4360 ot202l 6 Order dated 03.09.2024 ofthis Court in Crl P.No.8550 of2024 14

20. [n a petition filed under Section 528 c,f BNSS, this Court can't conduct mlnl trial, can't consider the coruectness of the statements of the witnt:;ses recorded under Sect.ion l6l of Cr.P.C.

21. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Crturt cautioned that porver of quashing shoLrld be exercised r ew sparingly and circunrspection and that too in the rares. r.rf lare cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, C,rurt cannot embark upon an enqt iry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of llre allegations made in the complaint or in FIR. In the said. udgment, the Apex Clourt laid down certain guidelines/p trameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.f C. I-he same read as under: "(. 1) Where the allegations made in tlre first information report or the complaint, even il' .hey are taken at their face value and accepted n their entirety do not prima facie constitute any of 'ence or make out a case against the accused. a a I I I I i I I : I t I I 15 (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justiffing an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppoft of the same do not disclose the commission of any olfence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable 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 proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concemed (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the Ib proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, ploviding the grievance tf the efficacious redress for ,.. aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal attended with mala procceding is maliciously instituted with ar Lrlterior is ma rifestly wh,:'e the proceeding fide and/or motive lor wreaking vengeance on the acctt red and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." The said principle was reiterated by the Apt x Courl in a catena of decisions.

22. In the light of same, this Criminal Petitirn is allowed in-part quashing the proceedings in C.C.No 160 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Spe cial Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases rrlating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad, for the offences unde r Section I 88 of IPC and Section 57 of the DM Act, 20C 5 against the petitioner/accused only. However, petitiollrr shall face trial in the said C.C. for the offence pun shable under .:.' 1. 77 Section 269 of IPC. The relief sought against Section 269 of IPC in this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/-A. JAYASITEE ISTANT RtrGISTRAR AS To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases relating to Mps and MLAs,Hyderabad

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nidamanoor 3. The Station House Officer, Peddavoora Police Station, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

4. One CC to Sri. Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. YJR /psl ?t- I HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 ORDER CRLP.No.5029 ot 2025 [ ( iiT Z$fi '.) "\' I I : I I I I i ! I l , {, I l I ; Ii i i I I CRIMINAL PETITION IS PARTLY ALLoWED. [, 1'1 }\