The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.315 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Vll Addl. Chief lVetropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad , arising out of Crime No. 284 of 2018 on the file of the Police Station, IMalakpet, pending the disposal of the Crl. Petition. This Peti:ion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [i/emorandum of Grounds of Cr-iminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A PRABHAKAR F:AO Advocate for the Petitioner and Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none for the Respondent No.2. The Court madr> the following: ORDER 7/ i' HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.6742 of 2024 DATE OF ORDER : 15.12.2o.25 Between:

1. M.Srinivas RedclY Petitioner And 2 State of Telangana ReP. by its Public Prosecutor, Fligh Court for the Stat'e of Telangana and another ...r{espondents ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sural<sha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS) by petitioner/ accused to quash the proceedings against him in c.c.No.315 0f 2019, on the court of vll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, arising out of FIR No.284 0f 2018, dated 23.tt.2018, on the file of Malakpet Police Station, under Section lT lH of tndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). ? 2 JAK,.I CrlP_6742_J024

2. He:ard Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for petitionr:r, and learned Assistant public prosecutor for rcspondent No.1-State. Perused the material on record

3. o. the basis on a complaint dated 23.l l.2olg, an F.l.R- bt:aring No.284 of 2o18, dated 23.rl.2org came to bc registerr:d fur an offence under section LTIH of lpc. Further, a char6;e sheet under Section r73 of code of criminal Procedure (tor short 'cr.p.c.') came to be liled and registerecl as c.c.No.3l5 of 20rg before the vll Aclclitional chiel Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

4. The complaint is filed by the Sub Inspector of police, Malakpr:t Police Station, Hyderabad, which r^/as lodged by one u.sirinivas Rao, Flying Squad Member for Malakpet Assembty constituency-S8. It was averred in the complaint that the complainant was posted as Flying Squad Member of Malakpr:t Assembly constituency-S8 for General Elections, 20 18. That the complainant while performing his duty on 2l.ll-2o18 to 22.11.2o18 (8:0o p.m.-B:00 a.m.), found flex banners advertising different schepe=_s, with party symbol (car symbol cf rRS party) on metro pillars. The total number of s,' J JAK,J cilP 6742 2024 banners on the pillars, as listed in the complaint are around

45. It is also averred that it is violation of Model Code of Conduct of General Electiclns, 2Ol8 and hence, necessary action to be initiated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case pertains to violation of Model Code ol Conduct in view of General Elections, 2018. tt is further submitted that any violation of Model Code of Conduct would bc a violation of a promulgation to do or uot to do certaiu acts by t.he concerned authorities. It is also submittcd that orrce Model Code of Conduct is in operatiou with respect to General Elections, any violation if alleged, Section I BB of IPC gets attracted.

6. It is submitted that the complaint is lodged by a member of the Flying Squad, specifically stating that he was in charge of a particular area and that, while he was conducting routine survey of the area, he found flex banners of a particular party pasted on various metro pillars, which is a violation of promulgation of the Court. Hence, action was sought to be initiated. It is further submitted that Section lT lH of IPC cannot independently be made applicable \. 4 JAK,J cilP_6742_2024 without there being an offence made out under Section 188 of IPC - 7 . l,c zrrnecl counsel invitecl the attention o[ this Courrt to Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that Sections 172 Lo lBB oi IPC are offenccs which have an umbrella of protection at the t'me of cognizance, in the sense that complaint is to be made to the Magistrate by the Authority, ancl it is only upon such a complaint that at the time of taking of cognizance, [he bar un<ler Scction 195 of Cr.P.C. kicks in. Learned counsel lurthcr invited the attention of this Court to Section 171H of IPC an,l contended that it pertains to violation <lf Election Code erad therefore, it cannot be considered in isolation, as Section l BB of IPC has to be roped in

8. Lr:arned counsel further submitted that it is not the casc of thc state that the accused did not take permission. Accusel has sought permission from the chief Electoral Officer, Telangana State, for advertisements of TRS party scheme,s along with TRS party logos for public support in vie,,v of the General Elections. Petitioner is being accused for not ser:king permission from the Returning officer of the 'fI 5 .IAK,J CrlP -6142_2024 Malakpet Assembly Constituency. It is pointed out that once the Chief Electoral Officer granted permission, it is not a requirement to take permission of the Returning Officer. [-{ence, the proceedings in C.C.No.315 of 2Ol9 on the file of VII Additional Chief Magistrate, if permitted to go on, would bc an abusive process of law.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on bchalf of State submitted that petitioncr was under an obligation to seek permission from the Returning Officer and the permissi<ln sought from the Chief Elcctoral Officer r,vould not wash away the requirement of the permission to be sought from the Returning Officer. It is further submittcd that a case is registered under Section 17lH of IPC and that charge sheet is on record, before the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance is taken and no interference is necessitated

10. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions 6 J;\K,.1 Crll' _67 42_20?.4 1 1. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner worked as General Secreta:y o[ TRS Party, permission from Chief Electoral Officcr for publishing and giving advertisement for Governrnent schemes along with party symbol was obtained, this ferct is not disputed. Complaint came to be lodged by a member of the Flying Squad Team of Malakpet Constituenc,v on the ;3rollnd that flexi banners w,ith different schemes and party s'ymbols wcrc pasted on the metro pillars dr-rring thc Ceneral Dlections of 20 18. Complainant was a Flying Squacl Member- for overseeing implementation of Model Code of conduct durir-rg Gencral Elections of 2o18. while perlorming his dut'9, he came across thc flexi banners on various metro pillars rlnd lodged a complaint with Sub Inspector o[ police, Malakpet Police Station on22.11.2O18, received at 1:30 p.m. L2. An F.l.R came to be registered under Section 171H of lPC, charge sheet r*ras filed. cognizance was taken by the VII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the case numbered as C.C.No.315 of 2019.

13. on a perusal o[ the contents of the charge sheet, it is evident thi,rt the accused herein had taken permission from fi' 7 JAK,J CrlP 6742 2024 the chief Electoral officer for advertisement of rRS party schemes along with TRS party logos and the development during the General Electior-rs 2018. It is contended that the accused did not take permission lrom Returning Officer lor advertisements, they gave order to one Advertisirrg Agency. Section LT IH of IPC is alleged.

14. It is trite to extract the contents of Section 171H ol IPC. Section 17lH of IPC is as follows: "Illegal payments in connection with an election- Whocver without the general or special authority in rvriting of a candidate incurs or authorizes expenses or1 account of the holding of €rny public meeting, or upoll any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for Lhe purpose of promoting or procuring the electiorr of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; Provided that if any person having incurred a-ny such expcrlscs not excceding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such e.xpenses were incurred the approval in writing of the caldidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate".

15. On a perusal of Section l71H of IPC, it is evident that whoever, without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate, incurs or authorizes expenses, causes advertisement, circular or publication for promoting or procuring election of such candidate, that person would be punished. The proviso also speaks that an amount not 8 JAK,J cdP 6742 2024 exceeding Rs.10/- w'ithout authority, if obtains within 10 days for approval in rvriting of the candidate shall be deemed tr> have inclrrrcd surch expenses u,ith authority of the candidale. In other words, the person to be charged under Secti<>n lTlH of IPC is said to have made illegal payments in connection r,r,ith adverLisement, circular or publication or in any oth(:r rrr&oncr for the purpose of gaining votes

16. It is not thc case of the State that the offence alleged to have been committed by thc petitioner is with regard to illegal pl),ments. Thc complaint speaks about the pasting of flexi banners in the name of different schemes, on the metro pillars in violation of Model Code of Conduct. It defies the logic of this Court as to how a complaint which is made for pasting or hanging of flexi banners on metro pillars is said to be an o:'fence under Section L7 LH of IPC. The language used in Section 171H of IPC is entirely different to what the complaint seeks to speak of. Be that as it may, even otherwise, going by the contents of the charge sheet, it is observed that accused took permission from the Chief Electorirl officer for advertising the party schemes and party .-f -& 9 JAK,.I CrlP-6742__2024 i logos and a copy of the permission issued by the office of Chief Electoral officer is placed as material evidence. The only grievarlce is that the permissicln has not been sought from the Returning Officer, Malakpet Constituency.

17. No clause of the Model code of concluct that permission is required from the returning officer is show,n. In the absence, this court does not find any force in the contcntion advanced on behalf of the State that permission of Returning officer, Malakpet constituency, has to be obtained ir-r spite of the permission of the chiet Electorerl officer of the Telangana State. viewed from the other angle, if it is case of an offence for violation of Model code of conduct, the offences cannot stand independently, without there being a violation of an offence under section 188 of Ipc. In other words, Section 188 of IPC, being the offence for violation of promulgation of an order of authority, has to be read r,vith Section 17lH of IPC. once Section lr LH of Ipc is added along with section 188 of IPC, the bar under Section 195 of cr.P.c. for taking cognizance kicks in. Section 18g of Ipc speaks of an offence for disobedience of the promulgated 10 JAK,J C;.tP_6?42]071 I order by a public servant, section 171H of IPC is in respect of electirns. Violation of a promulgation order i'e', Model code of concluct attracts Section 188 0f IPC- Be that as it may, it is rcflectecl in the charge sheet that permission from the Chief Electoral Officer was obtained' I8. Ha.ving considered the entire factr-ral matrix of the case and the material on recorcl, this court is of the viernr that proceedLngsinC.C.No.3l5of2o]tgonthefileofVII Additional Chief Me tropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderatrad, if allowed to continue, would be an abuse of process of la,"v. Proceedings in c.c.No.315 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampalty at flyderalt ad, qua the petitioner, are iiable to be quashed and are accordinglY quashed.

19. For reasons aforesaid, the Criminal Petition is allowed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To,

1. The Vll Addl. Chief Metropolitan fVagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The SHf, PS Malakpet, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRl. A PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies GE/PSL '&W HIGH COURT DATED:1511212O25 E" ORDER CRLP.No.6742 of 2O24 IHE S ( C) ? 1 ttg ?lflri * * ALLOWED THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS Ks 1I 2_ I 6