The High Court · 2025

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 the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused in C.C. No 1896 of 2019 pending on the file of the Vlll Additional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate at Nampally Hyderabad, for the offences UnderSections 171-H, 188of IPC and 21176of CPAct, in the interestof justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. M.A. MUJEEB, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri. IVI. Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI ]SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7049 of 202t. ORDER This Crr nirral Petition :s filed by the petitroner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No'1 896 of 2019 pending on the file of learned Vlll Additional Cirief lVletropolitan t\/lagistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 188 1 i 1(H) of the lndian Penal tlode (for short 'lPC') and Sections 21176 of the City Police Act (for shorl CP Act )

02. H:ard Sri tVl.A.tt/u1eeb, learned counsel for the petitioner anc Sri [Vl Ramachandra Reddy, learnerl Additional Public Pros€'cutor for ilre State-respondent Nos.1 & 2 Perused the record 03 lr brief the case of the prosecution is that during the General Elections 2018, the petitioner-accused moved in Yakuthpura Constituency on behalf of AllVltt/ political party and conducted padayatras and public meetings lt is alleged that the peti:ioner obtained permission on 04 1'l .2018 from 04:00 PIV to 08.00 P[/l for a padayatra from Bada Bazar X Roads to Harmain Hotel, Eidi Bazar via Rein Bazar, subject to certain conditions However. the political party is alleged to have violated the tt/odel Code of Conduct by conducting rallies with bikes jeeps horses, camels, and DJs, by using vans with loudspeakers. distributing party T-shirts and caps, and carryrng out activities without any valid permission Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner committed the above offe n ces 04 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case without making any preliminary enquiry and without taking any permissron from the learned lMagistrate and has routinely registered the present case, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. lt is further contended that the contents of complaint do not make out any offences as alleged. lt is further contended that in the similar circumstances, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners therein in Criminal Petition No 14744 of 2024 and the petitroner herein is also standing on the same footing and prayed to extend the same benefit to the present petitioner and prayed to allow this Criminal Petitir:n ,/ 05 Orr the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent Ncs,'1 and 2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings agarnst the petitioner-accused at this luncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the l:arned trial Court and prayed to clismiss this Criminal Petition 06 lr vrew of the facts and circumstances of the present cas€ on hand, it is apt to refer Sectior lSS of IPC which deals with 'disobedience to order duly prornulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as unCer "188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by puhlic servant.-Whoever, knowirg that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promtttgate such order, he is directecl to abstair fronr a ceriain act, or to take certain order with certain propefty rn hrs posses.sion or ttnCer his management, disobeys .such direction, shall, if suclt disobedience causes or tettds to cause obstruction, an noyatice or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punislrcd with simple imprisonntent for a term which ntay extend to one ntonth or with fine tvltich ntay extend to two hundred rupees, or 1 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, shall be punished with irnprisonment of either description for a term whiclt may extend to six months. or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. or with bottr Explanation -/t rs nol necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. lt is sufficient that he knows of the order which he drsobeys. and that his disobedience produces. or is likely to produce, hann. lllustration An order is promulgated by a pttblic seruant lawfully entpowered to promulgatc such order, directingt that a religious processiori shall nol pass down a certain street A knoruingly c/rsobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section." 07 lt is also apt to note that in N.T.Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorl while dealing with the offences under Sections 188 and 283 of lPC, learned Single Judge held as rtnder "!) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, suclt a direction under Secflon 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have 1 Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009. decided on 17 09.2009 l been giv.tn only by the Superintendent or the Assislant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. lf such a permissiotl is granted under Section 30 of the Dolice Act, 1861 and is violated, Sectlon 195 (1) (a) of Code of Crintinal Procerlu;e mandates that the complaint in this regarcl has to be made by the public setvant concerncd or some other person to whom such a ptrblic servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizartce of an offence under Section 188 of Cocle of Crintinal Procedure. ln the present case. th,: charge sheet was filed by the Sub lnspectar of Police, who could not have been the attthtrity to grant perntission for the public meeting and therefore, the complainUcharge sheel is in violation of the ntandatory provision of Sccliorr 195(1)(a) of Code of Crirninal Procedure. q Tt,at apaft, the offence alleged to have been contmitted under Seciron 283 of lhe lr)dratri Pt:rtal Code by tlrc petitioners and ollrets ,s obviously in consequence to ihe alleged offence under Section 188 of lndran Penal Code and is not an independent of the same l-ven othenaise, the conduct of puLtlic meetrng at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causrrtg any danger or injury to any persrtn. ln so far as the obstruction in any public v,tay is concerned, which can also be covered by Sectlon 283 of the lndian Penal Code, the charqe s/ir:c.l cites only one wtrress to spt:ak abottl tt'e ilaffic jam caused by the road sltow. 6 But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been pennitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenrence by way of obstructing the traffic, the sane cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under lndian Penal Cocle lJrtclq llte crrcLtntstanccs, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basrs and in any view, the complainUcharge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Crintinal Procedure. has to fail L As the contplaint has failed due to its un-sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, tltouglt the 1st accused alone approached tltis Court by way of this Criminal Petition '

08. ln Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2 relying on varioLrs ludgments including N.T. Rama Raol and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted,; to the institution and 'Criminal Petition No.'15248 of2016. decided on 26.10 2016 t lroszl srpp. 1 scc 3s5 1 continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific prov sion in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grrevance of the party, a learn:d Single Judge of High Court of J,:dicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by' exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr P C ). lt further held that the proceedings shall not be contirued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permrsson e nderr Section 155 (2) of Cr P C and taking cognrzance cn the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport o1 Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P C

09. lrr the present case, the lnvestigating Officer failed to corncly with the mandatory requirements of Sections 195(1)(a) & 155(2) of Cr P C. Further, the charge sheet and statements ol witnesses do not disclose any incriminating material to rttract the ingredients of Section 188 of IPC Furlher, the: contents of the charge sheet including statements of list of witnesses do not d sclose any incriminating material so as to attract the ingredients of Section 188 of IPC Therefore, the criminal proceedings S against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed 10 lt is apt to refer Section 171(tl) of the IPC deals with illegal payments in connection with an election, which reads as under: "Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any adveftisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever {or thc purpose of promoting or procuring the eleclion 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 antount 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 sltall be deented to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate "

11. A perusal of the charge sheet and statements of witnesses reveals that there is no material whatsoever to show that the petitioner incurred or authorised any expenditure in connection with the election without the authority of the candidate The essential ingredients of t Section 17 1 (ts ) IPC are therefore not made out 12 ln tht-. case of Bhajan Lal3. the Hon'ble Apex Court caution:d that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingll' and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear caser; While examinrng a complaint, r:uashing of which is sought Court cannot embark upon an errquiry as to the reliability or qenurneness or othenrvise of the allegations made The tlon ble Apex Court in the said Judgment laid down certarrr gr-ridelines/ parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr P.C., which are as under (i) Where the allegations made in the first inforrnetiort repod or the complaint, evert if they € re taken at therr face value ztnd accepted rtt their entirety do not prima facie constitLie any offence or ntake out a case against the accused. (ir) Where the allegations in the first inforinattort reporl and other materials, if any, accr:nt,)anyinq the FIR do not dlsc/ose a cogniz,able offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code c,xcept under an order of a Magistrate within lhe purview of Section 155(2) of the Codc. (iii) Where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not di:;close the commission of any offence and rn tke c>ut a case aqainst the accused. l0 (iv) Where the allegations in the Flf'i, do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence. no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a l\/lagrstrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherenlly intprobable on the basis of whicl't no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a crrntinal proceeding rs instituteC) to the tnstrtution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved parly (vri) Where a criminal procee ding is ntanifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite hitn due to private and personal grudge " 13 The above said settled principle of law was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions 14 ln the present case. as discussed above, the entire charge sheet, except for the allegation that the petitioner-accused had violated certain instructions and conditions of permission for the padayatra, is t;ilent with regard to the crucial aspect of how the petitione'-accused i was involved in illegal payments in connection with the electron All the alleged eyewitnesses citecr by the \ \ prosecution a'e official witnesses, and their statements do not disclose any rncriminating material as to the mode and manner in wrich the petitioner-accused is said to have indulged in such illegal payments Significantly, independent witness was examined by the lnvestigating Officer to suLrstantrate the allegations rn the charge sheet, and this lacurra in the investigatron rs fatal to the case of the prosecution ln the absence of any cogent. independent, and reliable materral subjecting the petitroner-accused to the rigour of trial would amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law. Thtrs, continuation of the criminal proceedings tn C C.No 1896 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Vlll Additional C:hief Metropolitan IVlagistrate at Hyderabad against the petrtioner-accused is an abuse of process of law '1 5 Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petiticrner-accused C.C.No 1il96 of 2019 pending on the file of learned Vlll Additional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending shall stand closed SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Reinbazar, Hyderabad District. 3. One CC to Sri. M.A. MUJEEB, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL i I : 'rES ,. 1 7 0[I 2[25 .J (J -f- /' HIGH COURT DATED: 03109/202s ORDER CRLP.No.7049 of 2t24 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED @ l, {.!: ,/z .\E