The High Court · 2025

1. The State of Telangana,, represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the Stat.e of Telangana. ...RespondenUState

2. Sri.Gelli Srikanth, s/o.G.Sathya Narayana Ag9$^aQ9ut 37 years-.,,ocgi . .. DV.Exe,cutive Enlineer, At Ciicle Z arid 8, GFIMC-, Hyderabad, R/o.Flat No. qdZl it.l6gisha R-esidency, Vivekananda nagar, Kukatpa lly, Hyderabad ...RespondenURes Pondent 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 c;all forthe records relating to in C.C.No.86 of 2024 on the file of court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Excise Cases At Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, arising out of Crime No.481 of 2023 on the file of the Police Sitation, saifabad, and quash the proceedings in cc.No.86 of 2024. l.A. NQ 1 ()F 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in tl"e Memorandum 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'86 of 2024 on the file of court of speciar Judiciar First crass Magistrate For Excise cases At Manoranjan comprex, Nampary, Hyderabad, ar:ising out of crime No'4g1 0f 2023 0n the fire of the porice station, saifabad, pending the disposal of the crl. petition. vrqlrL' l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: ,''*"ril?1"#t l?j?,tn"?,T;l?ff;::#:! bv its pubric prosecutor High court ror AND Petitioner/Res pondent

1. Katvakun,a Taraka lr,r.B..o, S/o.KCh?ldr? SekharRao, aged about 48 \Z{,tr', o fr f,i,%'A o i,:. ; #f :T r U f g : ii,,,$H:, ffg,..:/o H N o 8. 2 _ ...RespondenUAccused 2 Fi.#*f[tlf1"-c grlnv" Nala.vgla Aged about 37 years, occ +-tif ii!?,'i,'.?i['Jl,?"?&i?[t?J,:li:*:ytllm:in{f ,t;gljf r" No. 1 ... RespondenUCom plainant , Petition under section s2B of BNss praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted crrp.No.70 07 0f 2024 0nthe fire of High Court, Dt. 01 .07.2024 This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sRr A''RABHAKAR RAO, Advocate for the petitioner and the sri E.Ganesh Assistant pubric prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1, and none appeaed for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the fofiowing: COMI{ON ORDER \ a THE HOI\I'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos .87OO and TOOZ OF 2o24 COMMON ORDER: Criminai Petition No.8700 of 2024 is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by petitioner/accused No.2 to quash the proceedinSls against him in C.C.No.B6 of 2024 on the file of Court of fipecial Judicial First Class Magistrate For Excise Cases at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, arising ourt of Crime No.4B I of 2023 on the file of the Police Station, Siaifabad, registered for offences under Sections 1BB and l7llf of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for shortthe IPCJ.

2. Criminal Petition No.70O7 of 2024 is filed under Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'l by petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in c.c.No.B6 of 2024 on the file of court o[ Special Judicial First class Magistrate For Excise Cases at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, arising rrut of crime No.48 1 of 2o23 on the file of the porice .; lr,i I i II 2 a JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 &7007 of 2024 Station, Saifabad, registered for offences under Sections 188 and 17 lH of IPC.

3. Heard Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.2 and Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1, Mr. Sama Sunil Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the material on record.

4. Both criminal petitions are arising out of the complaint by one G.Srikanth, FST IB, 6O-Khairatabad Constituency, lodged on 20.11.2023 at 2O.00 hours before -Deputy Commissioner of Police, FIR registered is numbered as 481 of 2023, common charge sheet is filed for offences under Sections 188 and lTlH of IPC. Both the criminal petitions are heard together.

5. On the basis of complaint received by Deputy commissioner of Police (DCP), Central zone, Hyderabad, on

20.11.2023, at 2O.O0 hours from one G.srikanth of Flying Squad Team 18, 60- Khairatabad Assembly constituency, ) JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7001 of 2024 the DCP forwarded the complaint to SHO, Saifabad, with instructiorrs to proceed under Model Code of Conduct, and proceed rrith investigation. SHO, Saifabad Police Station, registered FIR bearing No.48l of 2023, under Sections 188 and l7lll of IPC for Violation of Model Code of Conduct The follovring are the contents of the complaint: "lt is to inform that, in response to the reference 3.a cited, a reply letter has been received liom the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Central '.Zone, Hyderabad City, Central Zone, Hyderabad, Police Department, Government of Telangana duly stating as follows: "...no body taken any police permission or drone permission in the above said premises for the purpose of above cited subject." In view of the above, as there is no permission obtained from the Police Department for usage of drone camera without prior permission. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of police, Central Zorte, Hyderabad City is hereby requested to take action on the concerned duly frling cases in accordance with Law on the violators of above Model Code of Conduct (MCC)." 6 - charge sheet came to be filed (c.c.No.g6 of 2024l before the I Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. on a perusal of record, it is observed that no permis,sion is obtained from the police Department nor permission for use of drone cameras \ I. I .? 'I { I 4 JAK,J Crl. P.Nos.870O & 7007 of 2024

7. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the procedure contemplated under section 195 of cr.p.c. is to be adhered to, for takin g cognizance of offence(s) punishable under Sections lT2 to 1gg of IpC. Learned counsel invited the attention of this court to section 195 of cr.p.c., and submitted that the complaint of a public servant, or a copy of such complaint or order, has to be forwarded to the court. Upon receipt of such complaint under Section 195 of cr.P.c., no further proceedings shourd be taken up on the complaint.

8. It is submitted that, this being the pfocedure to be adopted for an offence to be attracted under Section 1Bg of IPC, non-adherence to such procedure would nullify the proceedings. Learned counsel further invited the attention of this court to Sections 188 and rr LH of lpc and submitted that as section l7lH of Ipc, being intrinsically wired to offence under 188 of IpC, Clause (3) of the conclusion of judgment of Honble Apex Court in Deaendrq. Kumar u. The State (NCT of Delhi) and o;notherl would -- _*.\*--- | 2025 SCC Online sc 1753 /,.7 5 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 &"7007 of 2024 be attracted and as such section 17lI1. of IPC has to meet the same fate as that of Section 188 of IPC.

9. On the other hand, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent-state sirbmitted that promulg;etion orders of the Election commission of [nd.ia, dated 06.03.2014, and their violation a.re suffice to bring home offences under Sections 188 and lTlH of IpC. Violation of Model code of conduct also includes the expenses incurred by political parties to be placed on record. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit filed by Sub Inspect,rr of Police, to buttress the contention that interference is not necessitated at this stage and trial has to be proceeded with.

10. Learned counsel further invited the attention of this court r:o the Drone Rules, 202t, issued by Ministry of civil Aviation on Januaryr 28|",2022, which categorized air space into difference zones and that the act complained of falls under the 'red zone, of Drone Rules, 2O2L Hence, any operation of the drones in 'red zone, has to be with prior \ \ 6 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7 007 ol' 2024 permission of concerned authorities and in the present case, permission is not obtained from the election authorities or the authorities who are manning the elections' Learned counsel has invited the attention of this court to Paragraph No.gofthecounteraffidavit,tobuttressthecontentionthat quashing of an FIR should be an exception'

11. Learned counsel for respond'ent No'2 reiterated the contentions of Assistant Public Prosecutor and submitted thatitisaclearcaseofviolationofElectionCodeand petitioners/accused have to be tried for offences registered under Sections 188 and 171H of IPC' as no permission is obtained for the operation of drones'

12. Heard learned' counsels, perused' the record and considered the submissions'

13. Complaint is dated 2O'll'2O23 filed by one G.Srikanth, a member of Flying squad Team- 18 of Khairatabad Assembly Constituency' complaint add.ressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police' Central 1S Zooe, HYderabad' \-F , 1 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7007 of 2024 14- on tLre basis of complaint, FIR bearing No.4g1 of 2023 carne to be registered in the Police Station of saifabad, under Sections 188 and lTlH of Ipc against both the petitioners/accused in the criminal petitions.-

15. Section 188 of IPC is as follows "188. Disobedience to order duly promutgated by public senrant.- Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgzrted by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such ord.er, he is directed to abstain from a c:rtain act, or to take certain order with certain propertv in his possession or under his management, d isobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause cbstruction, Elnnoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, €-nnoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, tre punished with simple imprisonment for a term which rnay extend to one month or with fine which may extend lo two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause rlanger to human life, health or safety, or causes or ,-ends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with .mprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or wit.l 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 iuflicient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely io produce, harm."

16. Ser:tion lT lH of IpC is as follows: "L7LIJ,. Illegal payments in conaection qrith an election.- Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or auth6rises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or -(,1 i, 8 JAK,J Crt.P.Nos.8700 & 7007 of 2024 publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees: Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate."

17. On a perusal of Section 188 of IPC, it is apparent that when an order is promulgated by . public serv€rnt to act or abstain from certain act or acts, and if order is disobeyed and such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health, or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, such acts would attract the Section. Section 17 LH of IPC speaks of illegal payments in connection with an election.

18. It is pertinent to extract the contents of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., as the Section speaks of offences punishable under sections L72 to 188 of IPC. Section 195 0f Cr.P.C. is as follows: "195. Prosecution for contempt of layful of publlc senrants, for offences against "rrtfro"ity public justice and for offences relating to documents "i" evidence.- (1) No Court shall take iir." cognizance- n 'n 9 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 &7007 of 2024 ja) (i) of any offence punishable under sections IT2 to J 88 (both inclusive) of the Indian penal Code, (45 of J.860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or {iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, r:xcept on the complaint in r.vriting of the public servant ,:oncerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian penal Code (45 of lg60), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), Igg,2OO, 2O5 to 21 1 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the sard Code, when such offence is alteged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specifred in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), [except on the complaint in writing of that iourt or by such officer of the court as that court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.] (21 Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a iopy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt Uy"ttre Court, no further proceedings shall be taken oi tt complaint: " Provided that no such withdrawal sha, be ordered if the trial in the Court of Iirst instance has- been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-section (l), the term *Court,, means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a centrar, provincial or state Act if declared by that Act to be a court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub_section (l), a Court shall be deemed to be subtrdinate to the Court to \ 7,i,I t, t i ;l l0 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7007 of 2024 which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former court, or in the case of a civil court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdictionwithinwhoselocalJurisdictionsuchCivil Court is situate: Provided that- more than one- Court' the (a) where appeals li.e shall be ttre Appeltate Court of inferior jurisdiction Court to which such Couri shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lig !9.a Civil and also to a Revenue bourt shall be deemed to be subordinate to Court, ",ttt the civil or Revenue court according to the nature of "o' pto"""ding in connection with which the the case offence L to have been committed'" -to. . "fftg"a

19. Section 195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr'P'C' speaks of a procedure to be followed for taking cognizance for offences under Sections 172 to 1gg of lpc. This proced.u.re needs to be followed, Section 195 of Cr'P'C' mandates a procedure'

20.ttistritetotakenoteofthejudgmentsofHon'lcleApex CourtinrespectofSectionlg5ofCr.P.C.TheHon'loleApex Court, while dealing with Section 195 of Cr'P'C' in Deaendra Kumar (l supra) at Paragraph No'58' held as follows: "58. The procedure contemr:lated under sub- section (1) of Sttii"rr" SaO of the ir'P'C' is limited to *t'i'o'q;qtl "-T: J:l;ff :H'"Tll: su ch ca se s, "" itf; Cr.P.C. does not;;.JgJ;procedure with reference to an offence a"""'iu'"aii"ilil" 195(1)(a) of the cr'P'c' However, the ousle?"iitl"-*"ae in'nal Singh (supra) and M. x"t"y"tt?"1'^i""pt"t' more specifically that iection 195 of the Cr'P'C' onl) JAKI Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7007 of 2O24 St:ction 195 Cr.P.C does not have any application at the stage of investigation holds good as regards both Sr:ction 195(i)(a) and 195(1)(b) of the Cr.p.C. r€:sps611r.1r. "The overall bar contemplated under S:ction 195 could be said to kickin only at the stage of cr)gnizance." 2L. The Honble Apex court held that the overall bar contemplerted under section 195 of cr.p.c. kicks in only at the stage of taking cognizance. The Honbre Apex court summariz:ed the conclusions, which are as follows: "(i) Section 195(l)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. bars the court liom taking cognizance of any offence punishable under :Sections 172 to l8B respectively of the I.p.C., unless :here is a written complaint by the public servant :oncerned or his administrative superior, for voluntarily obstructing the public sen;ant from discharge of his public functions. Without a complaint from the said persons, the court would lack competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. (ii) If in truth and substance, an offence falls in the category of Section 195(1)(a)(i), it is not open to the court to undertake the exercise of splitting them up and proceeding further against the accused for the other distinct offences disclosed in the same set of facts. However, it also cannot be laid down as a straitjacket formula that the Court, under a1l circumstinces, cannot undertake the exercise of splitting up. It would d-epend upon the facts of each case, the nature of allegations and the materials on record.. (iii) severance of distinct offences is not permissible when it would effectively circumvent the protection afforded by Section 195(l)(a)(i) of the Cr.p.b., ,rti"f, requires a complaint by a public serva,t for certain offence-s against public justice. This means ttaiiiln" core of the offence falls under the purview of section 195(1)(a)(i), it cannot be prosecuted by simply fili;; , general complaint for a different, but relateal oiil""".. The focus should be on whether the facts, i., substarr"e, constitute €rn offence requiring a public servant,s complaint. \ .i\ t2 JAK'.I Crl.P.Nos.8700 &7007 of 2024 (iv) In the aforesaid context, the courts must apply twin tests. First, the courts must ascertain having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the complaint/FlR and other materials on record whether the other distinct offences not covered by Section 195(l[a)(i) have been invoked onlv with a view to evade the mandatory bar of Section 195 of the I.P.C. and secondly, whether the facts primarily and essentially disclose an offence for which a complaint of the court or a public servant is required. (v) Where an accused is alleged to have committed some offences which are separate and distinct from those contained in Section 195, Section 195 will affect only the offences mentioned therein. However, the courts should ascertain whether such offences form an integral part and are so intrinsically connected so as to amount to offences committed as a part of the safire transaction, in which case the other offences also would fall within the ambit of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. This would all depend on the facts of each case. (vi) Sections 195(1)(b[i)(ii) & (iii) and 34O of the Cr.P.C. respectively do not control or circumscribe the power of the police to investigate, under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once investigation is completed then the embargo in Section 195 would come into play and the Court would not be competent to take cognizance. However, that Court could then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during investigation, provided the procedure laid down in Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is followed."

22. On a perusal of conclusions summalrized by the Hon'lcle Apex Court, it is apparent that for taking cogrrizance of offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC, there has to be a written complaint by the public servant concerned or by the administrative superior to the Court and without there being a complaint from the said persons, the court would lack competence to take cogrlizarace' In the t3 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7007 of 2024 present cilse, the complaint is addressed to the Deputy commissi<>ner of Police and an FIR is registered and the investigation is taken up, charge sheet is filed, cognizance is taken.

23. No <:omplaint is made before the competent court, in the abser.ce of any complaint to court, the said procedure enumerated under section 195(a)(i) of cr.p.c. is said to have been given a go-bye, which is not permissible under law. 24 - It is pertinent to extract paragraph No. 15 of the Hon'lrle Apex Court judgment in B.N. Johnz and the relevant'cortion is as follows: "11). A bare perusal of Section l9S (l) of the Cr.p.C., cle arly indicates that there is a bar on the court to take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC except on a complaint in writing made by the concerned public servant io the court. Therefore, if it is found as contended by the ap,pellant that in respect of the offence under Section 1€i6 of the IPC against him, no such complaint was filed b1' the concerned public servant as contemplated under Se:ction 195 (1)(a) Cr.p.C., the CJM could.rol har. taken cc'gnizance of the offence under section 186 of the lpc. pleaded to which there is no rebuttal from the State that no such complaint was made in writing by a public st:rvant as required under Section I95(1) of the Cr.p.C., re lating to the commission of offence by the appellant u:eder Section 186 of the IpC." r zozs sCC r)nLine SC 7 \ : i i I ! ,t l 14 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7007 of 2024

25. As per the judgment of the Honble Apex Court, it is clear that a complaint in writing is to be made by concerned public servant to Court.

26. A learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Jeeaanandham and others a. State rep. bg htspector of Police and ornothe{, after referring to a catena of judgments, issued certain guidelines, which are as follows: "29.ln vier,v of the discussions, the following guidetines are issued insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC, is concerned: a) A Police Off,rcer carinot register an FIR for any of the offences falting under Section L72 to 188 of IPC. b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 4I of Cr.P.C. will have the authority to take action under Section 4L of Cr-P.C, when a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is required, to prevent such person from committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC. c) The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the preventive action as stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. and immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the sarne to the public serwant concerned/authorised, to enable such public servant to give a complaint in writing before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall take cognizance tf such complaint on being pima facie satisfred with the requirements of Section 188 of IPC' d) In order to attract the provisio-ns of Section 188 of IPC, the written complaint of the public servant concerned should reflLct the following ingredients namely; '2018 SCC online Mad 13698 (i l5 JAK,J Crl.l'.Nos.8700 &7007 of 2024 i) that there must be an order promulgated by the public servant; ii) that such public servant is lawfully empowered to promulgate it; iii) that the person with knowledge of such order and being directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to take certain order with certarn property in his possession and under his management, has disobeyed; and iv) that such disobedience causes or tends to cause; (a) obstruction, annoy€rnce or risk of it to any person lawfully employed; or (b) danger to human life, health or safety; or (c) a riot or affray. e) The promulgation issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and can only be in the nature of a regulatory power and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the Police. fl 1'he promulgation through which, the ordcr is made known must be by something done openly and in public and private information will not be a promulgation. The order must be notified or published by beat of drum or in a Qazette or published in a newspaper with a wide circulation. d No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an offence under Section I72 to 188 of IPC. An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab inifio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 1es(l)(a) (i) of Cr.P.C. h) The Director General of police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section l8B of IpC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public serwants concerned under Settion les( 1)(a)(i) of Cr.p.C.

27. In the present case, FIR is registered by porice for offenc,:s under sections lgg and rTrH of [pc. section l6 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7 007 of 2024 195(1)(a)(i) of cr.P.c. bars the court from taking cogrlizance for an offence punishable und.er Section 188 of IPC, unless there is a written complaint by the public servant to the competent court. [n fact, without a complaint, the competent court would lack competence to take cognizance. In the present case, no such complaint is made before the competent Court to bring home the offences committed under Sections 188 and lT lH of tPC'

28. Learned counsel for respond.ent relied upon the judgment of Honble Apex Court in State Of Odisha v' Proltima Mohantg and. othersa, to buttress the contention that quashing of an FIR should be an exception. This court is conscious of the fact that quashing of a complaint or an FIR can only be in exceptional circumstances, and the Court has to be cautious while quashing FIRs'

29.ThisCourtisbound.bythelawlaiddownby theHonbleApexCourtinDeaendraKumar(lsupra)and B.Iv.John(2supra).Inviewofthelawlaiddownbythe Hon,ble Apex court and the c.ontents of section 195 0f ) t7 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7007 of 2024 cr.P.c., this court is of the opinion that offence under Section 188 of IpC has to be set at naught.

30. Thr: question which now fars for consideration is offence u.nder section rr lH of lpc. The Hon,ble Apex court in Deaettdrq. Kumar (L supra) herd that when accused is alleged to have committed offences other than those reflected in Section 195 of cr.p.c, then courts have to ascertai. v'hether such offences alleged form an integral part or intrinsically connected to the alleged offence committ,:d under Section 195 of cr.p.c. as part of the sarne transaction. 31, or consideration of material on record, it is apparent that the other offence atleged is under section lr tH of Ipc which fcrrms an integral part of the act, and is intrinsically connectr:d to the afleged offence under section 1gg of Cr. P. C. 32- It is not in dispute that section LT rH of Ipc is reflectecr in the FIR and complaint speaks of use of drone(s) o 2022 t6 s(rc 703 I. l8 JAK'J Crl.P.Nos.8700 &7007 of 2024 during Model code of conduct (in force). Permission is to be obtained for operation of drone(s)' permission is not obtained from Concerned authority. In other words, acts of theaccusedinboththecriminalpetitionsareinviolationof the Model Code of Conduct'

33.Inthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,section |7|HoflPCformspartoftheSalnetransactionandis intrinsicallyconnectedtoSectionl88oflPC'whichfalls und.er the ambit of Section 195 of Cr'P'C'' and as per the lawlaiddownbyHonlcleApexCourt,iftheoffence,though separate/distinctfromthosecontainedinSectionlg5of Cr.P.C.,would'certainlybeanoffenceforminganintegral partofthesametransaction.Hence,offenceunderSection |7|HoflPCistobesetatnaughtandissetatnaughtin both the criminal Petitions'

34.ProcedurecontemplatedunderSectionlg5ofCr.P.C., as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Deaendrd Kumar (1 supra), has not been ad'hered to' qrrash petition(s) deserve to be allowed' Before parting' it is trite to extract 19 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7007 of 2024 Paragraph Nos.41 and 42 of the judgment of Honble Apex Court, which are as follows: "4 1. While deciding whether the distinct offences can be split up, courts must remain circumspect. It is agreed that, the law. is not that once the facts of a given case disclose an offence falling- within the scope of Section 195 Cr.p.C. and also other offences, prosecution carr be launched regarding the latter only upon the complaint of the court or the lawfully authority concerned. To hold otherwise would be to extend the scope of Section 19S Cr.p.C. to regions and horizons not contemplated by the legislature. The facts in a case may give riie to distinct offences including offences igainst the authority of public senants or against pubtic justicc, as also offences against private individuals; the bzrr under Section 195 of the Cr.p.C. cannot, in such circumstances, affect the offences other than those against public authority or public justice. Prosecution for such other offences does not require the instrumentality of the public authority or court. However, the position may be different when during the course of the same trartsaction offences falling within the two categories are committed. In such cases, it may not be possible to split up the transaction, and to hold thai there can be vzrlid prosecution for offences not mentioned in Section I95 of the Cr.p.C., without the written complaint of the public authority or the court, as the case may be. Courts must be able to see through any attempt to render Section 19S of the Cr.P.C. nugatory by hiding the real nature of the transaction by verbal jugglery. If in principle and substance the offence alleged fafls within the categories mentioned in Section 19S, the operation of the bar cannot be avoided; if in esse-nce the alleged offence falls outside the categories, the bar would not operate. At the same timi, if the facts girre rise to distinct offences, some attracting the operation of Section 195 and others not so, the bar c€u1 operate only regarding the former and not regarding the latter.

42. Therefore, the courts must ascertain whether cluring the course of a single transaction, the t\. ^ 20 JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7OO7 of 2024 offences falling within both the categories are committed, in rvhich case it would be diftrcult to split up the offences or, whether there are two different transactions which occur successively, nevertheless separately and distinctively, in which case the offences may be split up. One another aspect that may be looked into is whether, apart from the offences committed in contempt of lawful authority of public servants, or against public justice or, relating to documents given in evidence which fall under the scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the other distinct offences are of such a nature that private individuals are aggrieved. In such a scenario, it would not be reasonable to bar a private prosecution by the aggrieved individual for the reason that the public official or the court concerned has also not instituted a complaint."

35. For reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that proceedings in C.C.No.86 of 2024 on the file of court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate For Excise Cases At Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, .arising out of Crime No.48l of 2023 on the file of the Police Station, Saifabad, are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Both the criminal petitions i.e., Cr1.P.Nos.87OO and 7OO7 of 2024 are arising out of the salne incident, complainant being same (by the sarne officer), FIR lodged under salne Sections, charge sheet being the same, proceedings in C.C.No.86 of 2024 stand quashed in both the criminal Petitions: r (- 2t -. JAK,J Crl.P.Nos.8700 & 7OO7 of 2024 36 For the aforesaid reasons, these criminal petitions are allowed. Mis:ellaneous applications pending, if any, sha-ll stand closed" SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO REGISTRAR \ To, /TRUE COPY// ON OFFICER

1. QRecia Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Maharanjan Compk:x, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The I l,dditional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 3. The Station House officer, saifabad porice station, Hyderabad city. 4. Two'OCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. One CC to SRl. T.V RAMANA RAO Advocate tOpUCI 6. One C;C to Sri A.PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two C)D Copies NVB/PSL A i I E ,l HIGH COURT DATED 20t11t2025 COII4IUION ORDER CRLP.Nos.g7O0 and TOOI of 2024 a C) l* t * EfIt I U0U6 '+j! ALLOWING THE OTH CRIM,NAL PETITIONS B t? t,