Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public I'rosecutorr while dealing rvith the ollences u

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PET ITION No.72l6 OF 2025 ORAI, ORDER Hcard Mr. Narapara.iu Avanecsh, leamed counsel for the .petitioncr and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, Iearned Additional public Prosecutor appearing on behalf ol the respondents.

2. This Crinrinal Petition is filed under Secrion - 52g of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. 2023 (fbr short .BNSS'). quash the procccdings in C.C. No.i65 of 2024 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of F irst Ctass lbr Cases under Prohibition Act (L,xcise Court). Hyderabad.

3. l'he petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid C.C. 'Ihc olfences alleged against hinr are under Sections 153, 188 and l7l-F of II,C.

4. On the complaint dated i0.l 1.2023 lodged by rcspondent No.2, the policc ul' Karimnagar-ll (1-) Irolice Station, registered a case in Crime No.68l of 2023 against thc pctitioner herein lor thc aforcsaid off'enccs. As per the report givcn by respondcnt No.2. the allegations lcvclled against the petitioncr herein are as fbllorvs: 2 KL.J ( rl l' l!,).71 l6 ol l025 The pctitioner hcrein is thc contcsting canditlltc fbr thc Telangana Statc Legislative Assembly Election',- 102I liom 26-Karimnagar Assembly Constituency on bclurl[' of' BJI'} Party. There is han on clection campaign and con(luct of prcss confcrcnce by and on behall of the contestin! .:anclidatts fiom 5 00 P.M. (28.11.2023) to 5.00 P.M. (30.1 I 2{)23 t 'fhe pctitioner herein has conductcd a press mect on l

30.1 1.2021 stating that he along rvith his larri y' members oasted vote and appealed allthe voters to cast vo e and madc controvcrsial comments against other political prrtier i.r-.. BRS and Congress. l\' He also rnade controversial comrnents against the Chict' Ministcr regarding Nagar-iuna Sagar Project, eonduct of' elections. wrong political comments against the (lh icl Ministcr and adverse commcnts lvhich may cr,-'ittc rivalrv and larv and ordcr situation in Karimnagar I ou n and provocution with intent to cause riot in bctrveen 1\\'o croups lbr undttc influencc lt an l:lcetion. Kr__l Crl.P. No.72l6 o1 2025

5. During the course of investigation, the Invesl-igatirrg Officer recorded the statements of rcspondent No.2 a LW .1, panch witnesses as LWs.2 and 3 and LW.4 is thc Investigating Officcr

6. On consideration of tht: said statements, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.353 of 2024 by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PCR), Special Mobile, Karimnagar, for the aforcsaid offences. Later the samc was transferred to the Coufl of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class lbr Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court). Hyderabad. On transfer, the said case was renumbered as C.C. No.365 of 2024

7. The petitioner herein filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C-C. contending that the contents of complaint dated 30.1 1.2023 and the statements of LWs.l to 3 lack the ingredients of the alorcsaid oflences

8. lt is apt to note that Scction - 188 of IPC which deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as under . I I 4 Kl ,'l Llr1.l'. ilo.72l6 o12025 \ .,188. Disobetliencc to order duly promulgatcd by public servant. Whoever' knowing that' by an olcler promutgated by a public servant lawfully empou e'cd tcr promulgate such order' he is directed to abstain f'om a certain act, or to take certain order with certain p[otr'eft-v in his possession or under his managemetrt' disoceys such direction, shatl' if such disobedicnce causes or tends to cause obstruction' annoyance or injury' :r risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury' to any p(:rson laivtulli employed' be punished rvith simplc rrrpris- onmenl for a term which may extend to one morth or rvith t'ine which may extend to two hundred rLrl)erls' or rvith both; and if such disobedience causes or trertds to cause danger to human life' health or safery' ot (rauses or ten(ls to cause a riot or affray' shall be punisl'ed rvith imprisonment of either description fbr a tern ' rvhich to six months' or with fine rvhrch may .or' "r,"nd cxtentl to one thousand rupees' or with both' Explanation'-It is not necessary thxt the oflentler should intend to produce harm' or conte mphte his clisobedience as likely to produce harrn 11 is sufhcient that he knows of the ordcr which he rli;obe1s' or ls Iikely to and that liis disobedience produces' produce, harm. lllustration An ordcr is pron.rulgated br a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate sltch order' dirccting that a religious procession shall not pass dorvn a ccrtain street A knorvingly disobeys the or'ler' and 7 K L.J (dI'No7216of202i thereby causes dangcr of riot. A has comnritrcd thc offence defined in this section-"

9. It is also apt. to note that in N.'[. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public I'rosecutorr while dealing rvith the ollences undcr Sections - 188 and 283 ol IPC, leamcd Single Judge held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that thc pctitioner conductcd public rneetings at thrcc road junctiorrs contrary to thc permission accorded tbr conducting of a public nreeting only at one specilied place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act. l86l could have been given only by the Superir.rtendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not b1, any ol their subordinatcs. [f such a pcrmission is grantcd under Section 30 olthc Police Act, l86l and is violated, Section 195 (l) (a) ol Codc of Criminal Proccdure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concemed or sorne othcr person to whont such a public servant. is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to takc cognizance olan offence under Section 188 ofCodc of Criminal Procedure. [n the present case, the charge sheet was filed by thc Sub Inspector of Police. rvho could not have been the authority to grant perrrrission for tlre public nreeting and therefore. the Crinrinal Petition No.532l of2009. dccrded on 17.09.2009 -1 6 KI,.J Crl.l, \o 72t1, ot 2025 c()nlplir intlc hiirge sheet is in violation of the mantll tc't1 provisron of Scction 195(l)(a) ol Code ol Crinrinal Procetlurc. 6 ) -l'hat apart. ttre ofl'ence alleged to havc ltrett conrmitted under Scction 283 of the Indian Penal (lorle hy the pctitioners and others is obviouslr ir.r consc(luence to the alleged offence under Section lll8 of lrrdian l'cnal ('ode and is not an indepcndcnt o' tlie srnrc. Even othcrwise, the conduct of public meetinll ert tlrrcc roaLl junctions or obstrtlction to thc traffic ..ould luot h.tvc bccn considered as causing any dane':r or injun ltt an) person. In so far as the obstruction itl ltny puhlit l'itv is coucemecl. rvhich can also bc cover':d try Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge shect circs only onc wituess to speak about the tratTi( -am caUSr'J b,v tlic road shou' But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has becn pcrnrined ancl ii the gathering ior that pubtic meeting resulterl in anv iucortvenicnce by way of obstructing thc traffl;' the slnrc calulot he considered to be u'ith necessarl .lLLiltl' nrcns tea ltr construe the existence of an olltncc punishable trnder Indian Penal Code Under ttrc circrrrtstances. none of the of'fences alleged can b': ;aitl to hlL\'c illr) rcasonable basis and in any vier'' tl.rc crrnrp laint/c harge sheet being in violation of Sectic'rr 195 ( l) (a) o: Codc of Criminal Procedure, has to lail' 't\ r\s thc complaint has lailed dtte to tts utr- * 5.2stainabi litl'. thc procecdings in their entircty llrLvc ttr 7 KL.J Crl.P. No 72t6 ol202i fail, though the Ist accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal petition.,, l0_ In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. .fhe State ol,Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., p.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2 relying on various judgments inctuding N.T. Rama Raor and the guidelines laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, guidetine No.6. u,hich says that ra,here there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under rvhich a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or wherc there is a specitic provision in the Code or the concemed Act, providing eflicacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a leamed Single .ludge of rligh court of Judicature ar Hyderabad for the Srates .f Telangana and Andhra pradesh quashcd [he proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power under Section _ 4g2 of Cr.p.C. It lurlher held that the proceedings shal not be continued duc to technic.r dcf-ect of obtaining prior permission under Scction _ 155 (2) ol (-rirrinal Pcrition No.15248 oI20l0. Jccidedon 2h.lr).201r) .. . ( tt)el) Supp. I SCC ilj 8 KI-.J Crl P. No.?2 t6 of 2025 Cr.P.C. ancl taking cognizance on the complaint filel by V l{'O' and it is aeainst thc purport of Scction - 195 (1) (a) of {lr'P C' ll. Itr vierv of the abovc discussion, the [rvestigating Officer dicl not tbllow the procedure laid down under lle:ction - 155 ol Cr.P.C. Frrrther, contents ol charge sheet includirg statements of I-Ws.I to .i lack the ingredients of Section - 1li8 of IPC' '[herefore. the proceeclings in the said C C' for the c'flencc under Section - 188 ol IPC arc liable to be quashed against lhe petitioncr hcrein.

12. Section - 153 of IPC deats with 'u'ar'tonly giving provocation q ith intcnt to cause riot'. The same is r:rtracted as uncler: "S.153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to causc riot- rvlroever malignantly, or wantonly b1 cioing irn) thing rvhich is ittegal, gives provocation to an1 person intcnding or knorving it to be likely tl-ra t such prorocation $ill cause thc offence of rioting tc bc cornmittcd- shall. if the oflence of rioting be con nrittetl in conseclttetrcc of sltch prol'ocation, be punishcd with inrprisonmettt of'either description for a temr v;hich ma) extend to onc vear. or rvith fine, or with both. and *' il thc ot'ience of rioting bc not committed. u'ith s KL.] Crl.l' No.7ll6 of2025 imprisonment of eitller description tbr a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."

13. To attract the aforesaid offence. there should be r.villful provocation with intent to cause riot. 'Riot' is defined under Section - 146 ofIPC and the same is extracted as under "S.146. Rioting.- whenever lorce or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thercof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, everl' member of such assembly is guitty of the olle ncc of rioting-"

14. Section - l7l F of IPC deals with 'punishmcnt for undue influencc or pcrsonation at an election'. '['he same arc cxtracted bcIou.: "17lF. Punishmcnt for undue in[luence or pcrsonation at an election- Whoever commits the oflence of unduc influence or personation at an election sliall be punished with imprisonment of cither description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine. or with both." l-5. Scction - 171D deals with 'personation at elections', and it sa1's that whoever at an election applies for a voting papcr or votcs in the name of any other person, whether living or dead, or in l0 KL,J Crl.l. lJo 7216 o12025 I a fictitious name, or who having voted once at such election applies at thc same clection lor a voting papor in his own namc, and whoever abets, procurcs or attempts to procure tle voting by any person in an1'strch way, commits the offence or pcrlionation at an election. Provided that nothing in this section sha I apply to a person r'vho has been authoriscd to vote as proxy fil r an clector under any lau'for the timc being in tbrce in so lar as lte votes as a proxy lor such elcctor. t 6. As cliscussed above. in the complaint dated 30. 1 1 2023. respondent No.2 has atlegr:d that the petitioner herein has conducted press-mcct on 30.I1.2023 in which he stated that he along his t-arnill' members casted vote, appealed all th: voters to cast their vote. Accorcling to respondent No.2, the petittoner made certain controvcrsial statements against all other political parties, but he has not mentioned the same in the complaint. I(espondent No.2 did not mention the alleecd controversial comnlents against the Chief Ministcr regarding Nagarjuna Sagar Pro.iec , conduct of clections, wrong political comments etc. Respondeni No.2 has speciticatly staled that the oornments made by the pctitioner in the saiiprBss-meet held on 30.1 1.1023. But. he has not strrt:d so in his It t L..l Crl.l' No 7216 ol 2015 slatentent recorded under Section - l6l of Cr.P.C. -l'hus. therc are contradictory versions in his complaint and in his statement rccorded undcr Section - l6l of Cr.P.C. Therefore. the complaint dated 30. 11.2023 and the statement.s of LWs. I to 3 lack the ingrcdients of the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Offioer did not cxalnine anv other witnesses other than the aforesaid two pancfi u,itnesses and the statement ofrespondent No.2 herein. t7 ln Statc of Haryana v. Bhajan Lala, thc .Ape:i C'rrur-t caulionctl that por.rcr ol' cluashing shor"rld be excrcisccl rcrt sparirrr:lr ancl cileunrspcctiorr and that too in the r.arest ol' rcar C iI\. \ \\:hile cruntinin-r.t a cornplaint. quashing o1'which is sor-rgltt. L'ourt clutnot crnhtrrk upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment taid dow.n certain guidelincs/parametcrs tbr cxercise of pou,ers undcr Sec[ion - -1Sl oi ('r.l'.C . rrhich are ls under: "( I ) Where the allegations made in the first infunnation repofl or the complaint, even if they are taken at thcir face value and acceptcd in thcir cntirety do not prima facie constitutc (l99l) Supp. I S(l( il5 1 ) KI-,J Crl P No.72l6 of2025 any off'ence or make out a case against tl e accused (2) Where the allcgations in thc first information report and othcr nlaterials, if anv. accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable off'ence, j ustitying an investigation by potice olficers under Section 156(l) of the Code cxcept undcr an ordcr of a Magistrarc within the purvierv ol Section 155(2) ol Lhe Code. (3) Wherc tlte uncontrovcrted allegations ma'1e in the FIR or coutplaint and the cviden:e collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any otkncc and makc out z case against the accused. (4) Where the allcgations in the FIR do t o constitute a cognizable o lfcncc but constittrto only a non-cognizable otGnce. no investigalilrr is permitted by a police of ficer rvithout an ort:e : ol a Magistratc as contentplated undcr Sectiln I 55(2) of thc Code. (5) Where the allegations madc in the FIR or complaint arc so absurd and inherentl;; improbable on thc basis of rvhich no prudt:nt person can ever reach a just conclusion tltat - t.l Kt..i Crl.l' No 7216 ol1025 thcrc is sutllcient eround lirr proceeding against the accused. (6) Where thcre is an express legal bar engralicd in anv of thc provisions ol the Code or thc Act corrcerned (under lvhich a criminal procecding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of thc proceedings and/or where therc is a specilic provision in the Code or Act conccrned. providing elficacious redress for the grievunce of thc aggrieved party. (7) \\'here a crintinal procceding is manifestly attendcd sith nrala fide and/or rvhere the procccding is rnaliciously instituted with an ultcrior rrotirc I'or rvreaking vengeauce on the accuscd aud *ith a vicw to spite him due to privatc and personal grudge. " The said principle rvas rcitcrated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions I

18. [n thc prescnl. case, as discussed above, the contents of statenrcnts ol- t-Ws. I to i lack the inpredicnts of the aforesaid olfenccs. Therclbre, u,ithout consideriug the said aspects, the Investigating Olllcer laid the charge sheet against the petitioncr herein. 'fhercfbro. continuatiorl of the proceedings in C.C. No.365 \ ---'1 t,l KI-,J ( n I' \o 7216 of2025 - ol 2024 against the petitioner herein is an abusc of pro':ess ol larv and the-v- oannot go on. Thtrs, the procccdings in thc said CC arc liable to bc quashed.

19. In vierv of the aftrresaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision. the prcsenl Crimin rl I'ctition is allor,ved and the proceedings in C.C No.3(r5 ol' 201I pcnding on the lile of'the Spccial Judicial Magistratc ol [rirst ( llr's lirr Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court). IIldcrabad arc herebl' quashed against thc petitioner herein - accuscd. As a sequel thercto, miscellancotts petitrons. il lnr'' pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closcd. //TRUE COPY// SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTiON OFFICER To,

1. The J udicia llvtagistrate of First crass (pcR) specrar lvr.brle At Karimnagar, Karimnagar District

2. The special Judicial Magistrate of First class for cases under prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad

3. The Station House Officer, Karimnagar ll police Station l(arirnnagar. Karimnagar District

4. One CC to SRI NARAPARAJU AVANEESH Advocate []pUCl 5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies r-, ll Vtt//sh I fF I HIGH COURT DATED: 1510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7216 ol 2025 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION tu- t0 1) 6\ I'q \ I L--- -g1rti o ,^ c L) o * 19 tJr l/ ila s F4 r c,r€-f! t (\\( a A -4+ R TFE o l4 ) (- L fl d{ili lirfiA \, 6 r:'lt-lJ a