The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P'C praying that in the circumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theHighcourtmay u"pr""."otovacatethestaygrantedinCrl.P.No.6T4ll2o24onthefileofHonble High Court, dated 251o612024. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriAPrabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Ms. Shalini Saxena representing Public Prosecutor on behall'of the Respondent Nos"t & 2' The Court made the following: ORDER l) HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.674l of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao leamed counsel for petitioner/Accused No.15 and Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned public prosecutor appearing for respondent.

2. This petition is f,rled under Section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.p.C.), to quash the proceedings against petitioner/A.l5 in C.C.No.393 of 2023 on the file of the Court of leamed Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is A.l5 in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections l47,ll1l,l5l, 188, 341, 353 and 506IPC read with Section 34lpC; Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to public property Act, l9g4; Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and I 2 KL, J Crl.P.No.o74r of 2024 Sections l4:i. 147, 174(a),150(b) & (e) of the Railwa'vs Act, 1989

4. Sri A. .\dinarayafia, de facto complainant, is impleaded as 2nd respondent in this Criminal Petition vide order dated

02.04.2025 irt I.A.No.1 of 2025. He lodged a complairrt dated

15.10.201 1 before Govemment Railway Police, Secunderabad Police Stati,cn, against petitioner/A.15 and others alleging that in view of rail roko call given by petitioner/A.15, President of Telangana Political JAC, and A.16, Political JAC for formation o1' separate State of Telangana, on 15.10..2011 at 6:00 hours. Telangana Jagruthi President along with her 40 followers came to the railway track and stopped the train engine which was coming from Secunderabad side. 1'hey sat on the r:lilway track and gave slogans and caused inconvenience to the trains and also obstructed the duties of railway employees. Without obtaining prior permission, they all sat on railway track and threatened that if they were not allowed to sit on railway track, they will pelt the slones on police. On the basis of the said complaint, a case irr Crime t) 3 KL, J crI.P-No 6741 of 2024 No.432 of 2011 was registered on the file of Secunderabad Police Station, against petitioner/A.l5 and others for the l t ! aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the police filed charge sheet against petitioner/A.I5 and others in the Court of II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, for the aforesaid offences.

5. In charge sheet, it is stated that A.l to A.14 pleaded guilty and A.l5 and ,4..16 were absconding. The said charge sheet was filed on 0l .02.2013. Cognizance was taken on

01.02.2013 itself. The case against petitioner/A.15 was split up and C.C.No.393 of 2023 was assigned. Thereafter, the said C.C. was transferred to the Court of leamed Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

6. Perusal of record would reveal that in the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent, the only allegation levelled against petitioner/A.I5 is that rail roko call was given by Telangana Political JAC under the leadership of petitioner, President of I 4 KL, J Crt.P.No € 7rt1 o12024 TRS Party. Except that, there is no other allegation Llvelled against petitioner/A. I 5.

7. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer recorded the statements of 2"d respondent as L'W'l' eyewitnesses as L.Ws.2 to l0 and panch witnesses as l"Ws'1I and 12. Horvever, none of the aforesaid witnesses spoke about the role played by petitioner/A.15 in commission of albresaid offences. All of them in one voice stated that political JAC under the leadership ofpetitioner/A.15 gave a call for rail roko from 15.10.2011 to 17.10.2011 for formation of Telangana State. Accor<ling to them, rail roko programme was conducted on 15.10.1201 1 at 6:00 a.m. under the leadersrhip of petitioner/1r..15. Except that there is no other allegation levelled against petitioner/A. I 5.

8. As djscussed supra, on consideration ofthe staternents of aforesaid u itnesses, the police laid charge sheet against petitioner/l\ l5 and others for the aforesaid offences' ,\ 5 KL, J CrLP-No -6741 ot 2024

9. In view ofthe above, it is apt to note that Section 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as under: "188. Disobedietrce to order duly promulgated by public knowing that, by an order promulgated by a servant. -Whoever. public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain prope4y 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 obstructiorL annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, sha[[ be punished with imprisonment of either description for a lerm which may extend to six months. or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the ordeq and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section." I i l 6 KL, J Crl.P No.0741 oI202'1

10. It is also apt to note that in N.T' Rama Rao v' The State of A.P., re;r. by Public Prosecutorl, while dealing rvith the offences untler Sections 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judg,e of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Prade'sh held as under: "51 Even ifthe allegation that the petitioner conducted publi': meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accordcd for conducting of a public meeting only at on': speci[rccl place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the P'otice Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Supe:intcndent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the I )istrict but not by any of their subordinates lf such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has 1o be ntade by the public servant concemed or some other person to whom such a public servant is administrativeJy subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an ofl'errce under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Proceduro' In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the SuLb Inspr:ctor of Police, who could not have been the authority t'o grant oermission for the public meeting and therefore, the com,rlaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procer lure. 6) lhat apart, the offence alleged to have been committed undt:r Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the '. cillqur Petiri )n No.5323 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 ) 7 KL, J CrLP -No.6741 ot 2024 petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concemea, *lctr can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffrc 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 traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penzil 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 Criminal 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." I l. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2, relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao (supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble '. Crimiial Petition No.l524E of20l6. decided on 26.10.20t 6 -/ \. 8 KL, J Crl P No.6741 of 2024 Supreme Cottrt in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a criminal proceeding instituted) to the institution and continuance of the 1S proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the, concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the parfy, the leamed Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the C.C. mentioned therein by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is fuither held that the proceedings shall not be continued drre to technical defect ofobtaining prior perrnission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint liled by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section 195(l )(a) of Cr.P.C.

12. In Bhajan f-.,al (supra), the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and '. ltesz;.supp. I s(tc 335 9 KL, J Crl-P.No 6? 41 ot 2ti24 crrcumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise 'of the allegatioiis made in the complaint or in FIR. In the said judgment, the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. The same read as under: "(l) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even i[ they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where thc allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanlng the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying 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 uncontrovefted 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 mgnizable 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. 10 KL, J Crl P No 6741 o12024 ) (5) \\'here the allegations made in the FIR or complailtt ar': so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no pr:<lent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufh :ient ground for procecding against the accused' (6) Vlherc there is an express legal bar engtafted in any of the pror.isions of the Code or the Act concemcd (undcr rvhich a criminal procecding is instituted) to ihe institution anrl continuance of the proceedings and,/or where there is a specifi,: provision in the Code or Act concemed, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party' (7) Vi here a criminal proceeding is manifestly attendcd with mala fide and/or where the ploceeding is malicious)y institurcd with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on thc acr:used and with a view to spite him due to private arrd pcrsonal grudge." The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of deciSions

13. As i'iscussed supra, in the present case, the contents of complaint dated 15.10.2011 lodged by 2'd respondent and the statements of aforesaid witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ta,ok the ingredients of aforesaid offences' Therefore, continuati(lr1 of proceedings against petitioner/A'l5 in the aforesaid (1.C. is an abuse of process of law' Therefore, i i l 11 KI_, J CrlP.No.67 4). ot 2024 proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against petitioner/A.I5 are Iiable to be quashed.

14. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.393 of 2023 onthe file of court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in respect of petitioner/A.l5 only.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To, Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 lJ-{!i:lrl First Ctass. Magistrate for Excise Cases at Manoranjan Nampally, Hyderabad. The Speci Complex, Jhu.!1 Metropolitan [Vlagistrate Court for Railways at Sesunderabad. . r ne slatton House Officer, Secuderabad police Station, Secuderabad. . Two CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. One CC to Sri. A prabhakar Rao, Advocate tOpUCI 6. Two CD Copies DL g r(L --a iT€ o $B [?? t6 .a< i' -,lggr:. HIGH COURT DATED:03/04/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6741 ol 2024 ,) ALLOWTNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION a &tr*