Chethireddy Venkatram Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

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 quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.228 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel, for the offence under seclion U/s 143, 147,341, 188 R/w 34 IPC against the petitioner/ A13. l.A. NO: 2 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/Accused-13 in pursuant to the C.C.No.228 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel, pending disposal of the above quash petition' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri pulimamidi shashidhar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, the Additional Public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No. .r and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI DATE : 11.03.2026 Between: Chethireddy Venkatram ReddY AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, HYderabad and another ORDER: Petitioner Respondents This criminal Petition is filed under section 482 0f the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No'228 oI 2019, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Gajwel'

#2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.13 in the aforesaid calendar case, which arises out of a crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,341and 188 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (lPC)'

#3. Heard Mr. Pulimamidi shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No'1-State' 2

#4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that on 25.11.2018, during the night hours, certain individuals inctuding one contesting candidate from the lndian National congress (lNC) and an independent candidate were brought to the police station. lt is alleged that the petitioner, along with several others, staged a dharna in front of the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and circulated voice messages through the whatsApp messaging ptatform, allegedly mobilizing supporters. subsequenfly, it is stated that nearty 2oo followers from different Mandals gathered at the police station premises. Based on the report submitted by respondent No.2{he Sub-lnspector of Police, a criminal case was registered, and upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and other accused.

5.1. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 1gg lpC (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) is legally unsustainable in the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirement prescribed under section 1gs(1)(a) cr.p.c. Under the said provision, no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 188 lpc except upon a complaint in writing made by the concerned public servant or by another public servant to whom he is \ Ira i:r' J administratively subordinate. lt is further contended that the present proceedings have been initiated merely on the basis of a police report, which is impermissible in law in view of the statutory embargo contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. He further submits that this legal position has been consistently reiterated by the Hon',ble supreme court in c. Muniappan v. State of Tamit Nadu, (2010) I SCC 567, whbrein it was held that a prosecution for offences under Section 188 IPC cannot be sustained unless the complaint is made by the concerned public servant in terms of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

5.2. The petitioner further submits that there are no specific or overt allegations attributed to him in the charge sheet demonstrating his individual participation in any act constituting wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC or participation in unlawful assembly in a manner attracting criminal liability. The allegations, at best, are general and omnibus in nature, which do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

5.3. lt is also brought to the notice of this Court that Accused Nos.15 and 21, who are similarly placed as the petitioner and against whom identical allegations were made in the same crime, had earlier approached this court by filing crl.P. No.18 of 2020, and this court, by order dated 01.03.2023, quashed the proceedings against them on the i I 1 , I I I I I t I I I I i I I I I I t I I I t I I 4 ground that the mandatory requirement under Section 1gs(1)(a) Cr.p.C. had not been complied with. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of parity.

#6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the case was registered based on the report of respondent No.2 and that, after conducting investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons. However, he fairly concedes that the prosecution has been initiated without strictly adhering to the mandatory procedure contemplated under section 1gs(1)(a) cr.p.c.. He also acknowledges that other co-accused placed in similar circumstances have already obtained an order of quashment from this court and submits that appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law.

#7. I have carefully perused the materiar available on record.

#8. A perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the allegations against the petitioner pertain to his alleged participation in a dharna and gathering of supporters. However, insofar as the offence under Section 188 IPC is concerned, the statutory bar contained in Section 1g5(1Xa) cr.P.c. clearry mandates that cognizance can be taken only upon a complaint by the concerned pubtic servant whose order is alteged to \ \ \ a/,/ 5 have been violated. ln the present case, admittedly, the prosecution has been initiated solely on the basis of a police report, which is legally impermissible. The Hon'bte supreme court in c. Muniappan (supra), as well as several subsequent decisions, has categorically held that registration of FIR and filing of a police report cannot substitute the statutory complaint contemplated under section 195 cr.p.c.

#9. With regard to the other offences alteged, namely under Sections 143, 147 and 341 lPC, the material on record does not disclose any specific overt acts attributed to the petitioner. The allegations in the charge sheet appear to be vague and omnibus, without indicating how the petitioner individually committed the alleged acts or how the essential ingredients of the offences are satisfied.

#10. Furthermore, this court has atready examined identical allegations in respect of Accused Nos.15 and 21 in Crl.P. No.1g ot2OZO and quashed the proceedings by order dated 01.03.2023 on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement under Section 195 Cr.P.C. The principle of parity and consistency in judicial tI \ decision-making warrants that similarly situated accused persons should receive similar relief untess distinguishing circumstances exist. I I 6

#11. ln view of the foregoing discussion, and particularly having regard to the statutory bar under Section 195(1 )(a) Cr.P.C., the absence of specific material establishing the petitioner's involvement, and the earlier order of quashment passed in favour of similarly placed co-accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as explained in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, can therefore be invoked to secure the ends of justice

#12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.228 of 2019, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, ,/TRUE COPY" . P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ANT SECTION OFFICER

#1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel. 2. The AdditionalJudicial First Class Magistrate at GAjwel. 3. The Station House Officer, Gajwel Police Station, Siddipet. 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad TOUTI

#5. One CC to Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies rs, Q^ /Der STA (J 2 5 F,Afl ?tlzfi * * re! HIGH COURT DATED: 11103t2026 ORDER CRLP.No.6168 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION W