It is a,lso apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr while dealing

Heard Sri M.Ajay Kumar, learned cc unsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Do,ila, learned Additinal Pr.rblic prosecutor for respondenl s. 2. This Criminal petition is hled under Section 52g of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhith:r (for short 'BNSS) seel.ing to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.35 of 2025 pendinq on the file of Excise ()ourt, Maloranjan Complex, Hyderabad (transferred from Additional Judicial iirst Class Magistrate at Parkal).

3. Petitionr:r herein is .A3 in the saic C.C. The offences alleged against the petitioner hereir r are under Section 188 ,tf IpC and Section 4 of the lTeialgana] Prevention ol Disfigurement of Open Flaces and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable ptsters and Advertisements Act, 1997 (for short the Ac.,). On the KL'J Crt-P. No.6885 of 2O25 2 complaint lodged by the 2"d respondent, Police, P.S.Parka-l registered a case in Crime No.349 of 2023 on 24.LL.2023 against the petitioner and other accused. In the said compliant, the 2"a iespondent has specifrcally alleged that he is Divisional Panchayat Of{icer, Hanamakonda ald Model Code of Conduct In- charge (104). On 24.11.2023, at about 10.30 a.m, he went to the Pocharam village for the purpose of inspection and noticed that BRS, Congress and BJP wall posters pasted on government electric poles with photos and sJ,'rnbols. The same is in violation of Section 188 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act. The said act is also in violation of Model Code of Conduct. Therefore, he requested the SHO, PS, Parkal to take action against the petitioner and other accused.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Ofhcer recorded the statements of 2"d respondent as L.W. 1, Police Constable Mr.Pool Singh (PC 8239) of PS Parkal, as L.W.2 and one photographer ,..] KL,J ( rl P.No.6885 of 2025 3 by name NIr. K.Ajeeth as L.W.3. A11 thr<'e of them in one voice made a-foresaid allegations against the petitioner arnd other accused. On considr:ration of the said statenrents, the Investigating Office- laid charge sheet against the petitioner and other :rccused and sarne was tilken on file as C.C.No.35 of 20 25 on the frle of AdditionrLl Judicial First Class Magistra e, Parkal

5. The petitioner has hled the pres(.nt Criminal Petition to quash the proceedings in t re said C.C contending that there zrre no orders promulgated by any authority and therefore, the luestion of committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC does not arise. There is no obscene/objectione ltle material in the poste.r. There is no loss to the 2nd rr spondent or any Government authority and that the 2,,, respondent is not competent to lodge the complaint against the petitioner herein with the a-foresaid allegati,rns. KL,J Crl.P.No.6885 of 2025 4

6. Whereas, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there are specif,rc allegations against the petitioner herein and other accused. The a-foresaid contentions raised by the petitioner are defences, which he has to take before the trial Court during trial and it is for the trial Court to consider the same.

7. In view of the above rival submissions, it is apt to note that Section - 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promutgated by a public seryartt'and the same is extracted as under: ..188. Disobedience to order dulY promulgated by public servant.- Whoever, knowing that, bY arl order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain properly 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 iqiury, to any person la'*fully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for l' t' KL,J ( r I P.No.6885 of 2025 5 a term which may extend to one m )nth or with hne which may extend o two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disob edience camses or trends to cause dang,:r to human life, health or sa ety, or causos or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonnrent of either- description for a term whic h may extend to six months, or with hne rvhich mav extend to one thousand rup res, or with both. Explanation.-It is not necessarl' that the offender should intend to p:oduce harm, or contemplate his disobedie nce as likeiy to produce harm. It is sufficie rt that he knows of the order which he dis obeys, and that his disobedience produces. or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promrLlgated by a public servant law{ully empovt,t:1sd 16 promulgate such order, directing .hat a religious procession shall not pass c own a certain street. A knowingly disobe.;s the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defrned rn this sectiorr. " I I I KL,J Crl.P.No.6885 of 2025 6

8. It is a,lso apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, learned Single Judge held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contra-rJr to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 186 1 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure maldates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public 1 servant is administratively subordinate to t enable any Court to take cognizance of an r. Criminal Petition No.5323 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 KL,J ( rl. P. No.6885 of2025 7 offence under Section 188 of Ccde of Crimrnal Procedure. In the present case, the r;harge sheet was hled by tl e Sub Inspector of Police, who could nol have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefor:, the comp.laint/charge sheet is in vioiaion of the mandatory provision of S,ection 195(l )(a) of Code of Criminal Procedr rre. 6) That apa-rt, the offence alleged t,> have been r:ommitted under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner s and others is obviously in consequence to the a1legecl offence under Section 1il8i of Indian Penal Code and is not. an independent of the same. Even otherrvise, the cc,nduct of public meeting at three road jr,rnctions or obstruction to the _rafhc could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as t-he obstruction in any public vray is concerned, which can also be cover,:d by Section 283 of the Indian penal Codr:, the charge sheet cites only one witner;s to KL,J Crl.P.No.6885 of 2025 $: 8 speak about the tra-ffic jam 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 meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the trafhc, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Crimina,l Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its un-sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the lst accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition.' KL,J ( r I P.No.6885 oI 2025 9

9. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2 relying on va-rio rs judgments including N.T. Rama Raor ald the grridelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v,, Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, guideline No.6, whiclr says that where there is an cxpress legal bar engraft,:d in any of the provisions of the Code or the concer.ed Act (under which a crimin' rl proceeding is institutect) to the institution and contir uarlce of the proceeding,s andlor where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providirLg efficacious remedy to r,:dress the grievance of the pan ty, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature :.t Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andlrra Pradesh quashed thr: proceedings in the said C.C. ry exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It further held that the proceedings shall not be contirrued due to

2. r. Criminal Petition I'lo. I 5248 of 20 I 6, decided on 26. 10.20 l6 ltooz; supp. 1 s( c 335 KL,J Crl.P,No.6885 of 2025 l0 technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint hled by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the investigating officer did not follow the said procedure. Thus the proceedings in the present CC against petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC cannot go on.

10. In the light of the aforesaid principle, the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC in C.C.No.35 of 2O25 pending on the hle of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal, is hereby quashed against the petitioner.

11. Section 4 of the Act, 1977 deals with Penalty for unauthorized disfigurement by advertisements and it says that whoever afhxes to, or inscribes or exhibits on any place open to public view any advertisement without the written consent of the owner or occupier or '&;.' KL,J ( r 1P.No.6885 of 2025 person in rnanagement of the property irr which such place is sit'rated shall be punished with imprisonment of either dr:scription for a term which r ay extend to three mor-rths or with hne which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but which may e<tend to two thousand rupees, or with both

12. As discussed supra, in the complaint dated

24.11.2023 and in his statement rec,>rded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the 2"d responden- specihcally allege that the petitioner has pasted pos.ers with his party symbol and photograph on the e cctric poles, without obtaining permission from the electricity department Therefore, the sarne amo irnts to an offence under Section 4 of the Ac1 . Secondly, L.W.2 /policL: constable of L.W.3/videographer, who accompanierI the 2"d E arka-l and P.S, respondent during such inspection alsc specifrcally stated the same against the petitioner and other KL,J Crl. P.No.6885 of 2025 t2 accused. Therefore, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1,977.

13. It is settled law that in a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, this Court cannot conduct mini trial. This Court cannot consider genuineness/correctness of the statements of witnesses. In rarest of rare cases, this Court has quashed the proceedings in a criminal case. If the contents of the complaint and the statements of witnesses, prima facie, constitutes an offence, this Court calnot quash the proceedings in the C.C.

14. As discussed supra, pimafacie there are specifrc allegations against the petitioner herein and he has to face trial and take the aforesaid defences before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the sarne. KL,J ( r 1.P.No.6885 of 2025 13

15. In Bhajan Lal3, the Apex Court (:i utioned that power of qr-rashing should be exercised virry sparingly and circumspection and that too in the , aresl. of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embar.l< upon arr enquiry as to the reliability or gen _rineness or otherwise ol the allegations made in the l'lR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said 3rLdgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of polvers under Section - 482 of Cr.p.C., r,-hich a_re as "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint even if thel are taken at their face valu I and accepted in their entirety do not trima facie constitute any offence or makt: out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the hrst informretion report and other materi,rls, if any, a(:companying the FIR do not di: close a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers rLnder KL,J Crl.P.No.6885 of 2025 l4 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 support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence 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 oflicer w'ithout 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 concerned (under which a Kt,,J I -1. P. No.6885 of 2025 15 criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance )f proc(redings and/or where thert: is a speclfic provision in the Code or Act conc,srned, providing efficacious redress for tlre grievance of the aggrieved pe rty. (7) Where a crimina-l proceed ing is manifestly attended with mala fide :rnd/or wher,: the proceeding is mali::iously instituted with arl ulterior mot:r,c for wreaking vengeance on the accusr:d and with a view to spite him due to privz.re and personal grudge." The srrid principle was reiterated tJ, the Apex Court in catena of decisions.

16. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradestra, the Apex Court referring to its earlier judgments has categorically held that the High Courts ir exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 ol Cr.P.C. has o. alt :02 t sc 9-r I KL,J Crl.P.No-6aa5 of 2025 16 to quash the proceedings in crimina-l cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme canrtion.

17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed in part quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 only insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC is concerned. The petitioner sha-Il face tria,l in C.C.No.35 of 2025 pending on the hle of Additiona,l Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Parkal, insofar as an offence under Section 4 of the Act is concerned. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY SS ANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at pa 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Manoranjan Complex, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad.

3. The Station House Officer, Parkal Police Station, Hanmakonda. 4. One CC to Sri. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, Advocate [OPUC] 5. m CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies. PSK /ABK t- W HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 ,",\t \- 2 I sEP 2025 \ i 'n: ORDER CRLP.No.6885 of 2025 CLOSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION q@ Vr 4\{t,