The High Court · 2025

Order

I{eard Ms. L.Pranathi Reddy, lcarncd counsel lbr the petitioner and Sri Arun ](urnar Dodla, learned Additional Put,i c Prosec utor appealing for Statc.

2. The present criminal petition is filed under Section -528 ol the Bhalatil,a Nagalik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( for shor1, thc BNSS') by tlie pctitioner to quash the plocccdings in C.C. No 287 of 2024 pending on the tlle of Special .ludicial Magistrate o1' First Class lbr trial ol'Cases relating to MPs and MI-As at I{yderabad. l. The petitioner herein is arlaigned as accusr,d No. 1 in the aforesaid C.C. l'hc oflenccs allcgcd against hirn are uncer Sections - 188, 285 read rlith 1,1 of Indian Pcnal Code (for sh.rrr, 'Lhe IpC') Section 5l (1)(b) of the Disaster Manageurent Acr, 2005 ( lor shor-t, 'the DM Act') and Section 3(l) of the Epidemic DiserLses Acr, 1897 ( for short, 'the IlD Act').

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.06.2021, 2"d respondent lodged a complaint rvith the Sub Inspector oIPolice, l).S. Kamalapur (L.W.5) stating thar on 08.06.2021 ar abou: 9.30 A.M.. r 2

while he along with other staff, was on bandobusth duty, Sri Etala Rajender, an MLA of Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency, along with Smt. Tula Uma, Ex-ZP Chairperson, Karimnagar, Etala Bhadraiah, Tummeti Sarnmi Iteddy, Balasani Kumara Swamy Goud, Tadaka Srikanth, Matla Ramesh, Desani Koti, I,ulla Shobhan, Katti Ramesh, Jenipothula Ramesh and others came there on 40 four wheelers and 60 two wheelers, in violation of Covid- 19 orders issued by the Govemrnent. They took rally from Sambhunipalli Village Sivar and reached Arwapalli, Lrnder thc leadership of Sarnrajyam Goud, they reached the house of Pendyala Tirupati Reddy, without maintaining social distance and without wearing masks. After having breakfast, they reached Kanaparthi Village and conducted rally along with Kodiguti Balaraju, Vollala Srinivas and reached Kamalapur, where Valige Samba Rao, Chelika Srinivas, Kondam Srinivas and others conducted rallv 1n Kamalapur, reached Kamalapur Bus Stand, negligently started burning crackers causing undue hardship to the people around, reached the house of the petitioner near Ramalyam Temple, Kamalapur Village. Thereafter at about 12.45 p.rn., they conducted a press meet in the house of the petitioner and took video of the said rally and thereby violated the Rules of the lockdown due to :.;{l*t_ J Covid- 19 by assembling in large number, not mainr aining proper distance between then-r and without wearing masks arrd have become responsible fbr spleading the virus. l'herefbre, he req:ested to take neccssary action on thcrn as per law.

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Olficer recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as L.W. l, Pol .ce Constables as L.Ws.2 and 3. L.Ws.4 and 5 are panch witnesses. L.$/.6 is first Investigating Of1lcer and second Invcstigating OfficeL as L.W.7. On consideration o1' the said statentcnts, 1,.W.7 laid charite sheet against the petitioner herein and learned Magistrate took collnizance oi the said offences against the petitioner herein vide C.C.No.287 of 2024.

6. Petitioncr'filed the prcsent pctition to quash .he pr.oceedings in the said CC contending that thc contcnts of thc c omplaint oated

08.06.2021 and statements of L.Ws.l to 5 lacks the inrr.edicnts of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner hereir:. Ile was not there rvhile the other accused burning crackers. The only allegation leveled against the petitioner herein is that the other a:cused came to his house and he oonducted a press rneet. I I 4

7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is apt to extract the relevant provisions of IPC, ED Act and DM Act, which are as under: I NDIAN PENAL CODE "188. Disobcdicnce to ordcr duly promulgated by public scrvant.--Whoer cr. klowing that, by an ordcr promulgated by a pubtic servant lawfully empon'ercd to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a ccrtain act. or to take ccrtain order rvitli ccrtain propcrty in his possession tlt undet liis rnanagemcnt, disobcys suoh direction. shall. il such disobediencc causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment lor a term which ma)' extcnd to one month or with fine which may extend to tu'o hundred rupees, or with both; and il such disobedicnce causes or trends to cause danger to human life, hcalth or sal'ety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray. shall bc punished *'ith imprisonment of either description for a [erm w-hich may extend to six months, or with finc which rnay extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-It is not necessary that thc offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of thc order rvhich he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to producc, harm. \ ) Illustration An order is promulgated by a prrblic servant lanfully cmpo\vered to promulgate such oider, dirccting that a religious procession shall not pass rlo,vn a certaif street. A knou,ingly disobeys the ordcr. and thereby causes dangcr of riot. A l.ras committed thc ol'1 :nce dcfincJ irr this scet irrn. "

285. Negligent conduct with respect to f r,r or combustible matter. - Whoever does, rvitlr firc or an1, combustiblt' nr.rttrtr, any act so rashly or ncgligcntly as to cndanger Itrr rtan life, ol to bc likoly to cause hurt or injury to an1, othcr person, or knou,ingly ol ncgiigently omits to talit :rrrch order n'ith arN filt' or an\., combustible matLt.r n his possession as is sufficient to guarcl agairrst anr,. Probablc dangcr to human life from such filr or combustible mattcr, shall be punishecl rvitl.r imprisoument of either description for a ternr rr'rich may cxtend to six months, or with fine rvhiclt rn.rv extend to one tl.rousand lupces, or wit1.r both. EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT

3. I'enalty. ( l) Ar4, person disobcl ing rr rr regulation or order made under this Act shal rc deemed to havc oomrnittcd an oflence punisliirt lc under section 188 of the Indian Pcnal Codc ( 1 ; ol 1860). (2) Whoever,- (i) cornmits or abcts the commission of an ir(l ol violencc against a healthcare sen,ic _' personncl: or 6 (ii) abets or cause damage or loss to any froperty, shalt be Punished.. *tlh i.[ri.on*.rt for a term which shall not be less than three months, but which may extcnd to five years, and with finc, rvlrich shall not be less ihan filty thousand rupccs, but rvhich tnaY extend to two lakh ruPecs' against (3) Whoevcr, rvhile cornmitting an act of violencc a healthcarc scrvicc personncl, causes hu( as detlncd in section 320 of the grievous Indian Penal Code (45 ol 1860) to such pcrson' shatl be punishcd rvith inlprisonnlcnt lor a tcrln which shall not bc less than six months' but rvhich [lnc' rvhich lnay extend to seven )'ears and shall not be less than one lakh rupees' but which may extend ttr live lakh rupces "i'ith " DISAST ERMA NAGEM ENT ACT "51. Punishment for obstruction' ctc - Whoevcr, without reasonablc causo- (a) obstructs any officer or employce ot'thc Ccntral Govcrnment or the State Governmcnt' or a persoll authorised by thc National Authority or State Authority or District Authority in the discharge ol his functions under this Act; or (b) refuses to comply r'vith any direction givcn by or on behalf of the Central Govcrnment or the State Govemment or the National Bxccutive Committee or the State Executivc Cotnmittee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction bc i... 7 punishablc with irnprisonmetrt lbr a term whicJr may extcnd to onc year or with flne , or with both. rrrd il such obstruction or relusal to cornply with dirc:lions results in loss ol lives or immincnt danger thc'col. shall on conviction be punishable rvith impriso rrncnt lor a term u,hich rnay extend to t\vo years."

8. In view of the above, the [egistative intent I chind Section - 195 Cr.P.C. is rhat an individual should not face crinrinal prosectttion instituted upon insufficient grounds by person actuat( (l by malic:c or frivolity of deposition and to savc the time of the court bcins witsted by endless prosecution. In the absence of complain by the public servant concerned under Section 195 Cr.P.C.. the off ence under Section - 188 of IPC against accused cannot bc s:r:;tained.

9. In order to convict any person lor cornrnis'ion of oflence punishable under Section - 188 lPC, the Court has to srrr isl,r itsell'that the accused had not only violated the order promulgatr:d b1,a public servant but also tl-re accused had actual knowledge ol iss;uance of such order. In the case on hand, there is no whisper in the chrrge sheet that the accused had knowledge of the order. 8

10. In Bhoop Singh Tyagi v. Stater, the Delhi High Court held that a person booked underSection - 188of IPC must have actual knowledge of pubtic servant's order requiring him to do or abstain from doing some act. It was fufther held that acquiring or gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite and any proof of general notification promulgated by a public servant would no1 satisf' the requirement.

11. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor2 while dealing with the oflenccs under Sections - 188 and 283 ofIPC, the learned Singte Judge held as under: "5) Even il the allegation that the pctitioner 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, such a direction under Scction 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of thc District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a pcrmission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandatcs that the complaint in this

1.2Wk1.L.J.2872 2. CriminaI Petition No.5323 of2009, decided on 17.09.2009 .,4 4.t .r'/ ././ ,, 9 regard has to be made by the public solr tLnt concerned or sorne other person to whom such a public servant is administrativcly subordinatc itr enablc any Court to takc cognizance of an ollcn,:c under Section 188 of Code ol Criminal Ptoccrlrrrc. In thc present case, the charge shect was lilccl try thc Sub Inspoctor of Police, who could not ltit"e been thc authority to grant permission tirl tlre public rneeting and therefore. the cornplaint/chi rtc sheel is in violation oI the mandatory provision .rl' Section I 95( t )(a) of Code ol'Crirninal l)roccdrrr e 6) 'l-hat apart. the olfencc allcgcd to havc [rc,:n comrnitted undcr Section 283 of the Indian l'r:nal Codc b1 the petitioners and others is obviousl'. in conscquence to the alleged offence under Scc ior.r 188 oi L-rdian I'enal Code and is noL rrn indepcndcnt o[' the same. Even otherwisc. t]rc conduct of public meeting a1 three road junctions or olostruction to the trailic could not lravc t c:n considercd as causing any danger or injury 1o an1 person. In so lar as the obstruction in any pubric wa1,is concerned, which can also be covelerl by Section 283 ol the Indian Penal Code, the chirr3e sheet cites only one witness to speak about rle traffic .jarn causcd by the road show. But, u h:n the conduct of tlie public nreeting at least at ()tc placo has been permitted and if the gathering lbr that public mceLing resulted in any inconvcnirncc IO by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to bc with necessary gullty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under thc circumstances, none of the ollcnces alleged can be said to have any reasonablc basis and in anl vicw, the comptaint/charge shcet being in violation of Section 195 (l) (a) of Code oI Crirninal Procedure, has to fail. As the complaint has lailed due to its 7) unsustainability, tlic proccedings in thcir entircty havc to fait. though the 1" accused alone approached this Coutt by way of this Criminal Petition."

12. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The Statc of Andhra Pradcsh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District3 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao2 and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supt'enre Court in Statc of Haryana v. Lala, more particularly, guideline No'6, which says that where there is an express Iegal 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 continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or r. Criminal Petition No.l524E of 2016, decidcd on 26.10.2016 o. lteoz;supp. I SCC 335 \ w ,/ // the concemed Act, providing efficacious remedy r o redrcss the grievance of the palty, a learned Single Judge of I1 gh Courr of Judicature at I lydcrabad lbr the States of Telangan,r and Anclhra Pradcsli quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by ex-'rcising pow,er under Section 4ll2 of Cr.P.C. It further held that the proceedings shall not be continued clr-r e to technical defect of obtaining |r ior pe-rrnission undel Scction - 155 (2) ol Cr.P.C. and taking cognr;:ance on the complaint lrled b1 V.R.O. and it is against the purport ol'section - 195 (l)(a)olCr.P.('

13. In the case or.r hand, the police did not rri:r.rtion in the charge sheet thut the petitioner herein had knowledgt: of the order prornulgated by Lhc public servant. Further., as alre:<[y c]iscussed abovc, the Invcsl-igating Officer has not even examined :lny independcnt witncss to show that the petitioner did not rvr:ar any mask and that thcy dirl not maintain physical distance of thrc-r: leet etc., :rnd that on account of thcir acts, the innocent people gather.r d at one place causing chance of spreading Corona Virus to the society

14. It is relcvant to note that perusal of G.O.Ms I'Jo.l 3 would revcal that it was issued by the Govemment of Telangant in exercise t2 of the powers confened under Section - 2 of the E.D. Act, framing certain regulations called as 'The Telangana Epidemic Diseases (COVID-19) Regulations, 2020'. Clauses 16 and 17 of the regulation in the said G.O. are relevant, which are as under: "16. Any person, institution, organization violating any provision of these Regulations shall be deemcd to have committed an oflence punishablc under section 188 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). The empowered olficers may pcnalize any person, institution, organization for-rnd violating provisions of thesc Regulations ol any further orders issued by Government under these Regulations.

17. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything donc or intended to be done in good faith under these Regulations."

15. In continuation of the said G.O.Ms.No.13, the State Govemment has also issued G.O.Ms.No.14, dated, 23.03.2020, framing some more regulations to ensure social distancing to restrict the spread of COMD-I9, to be followed by all Shops, establishments etc. In the said G.O., it is also mentioned that violation of the social distancing norms shall be punishable under Section - 188 of IPC. r- / /' t3

16. A pelusal of the G.O.Ms.No.1 16, dated 3C.05.2021 lr.ould reveal that it was issued in exercise of powers conf:rred under the Disaster Managernent Act,2005, on account of pander ir: situatiorL, the Gover-nment has extended the lockdown with certain modihcations across the State of Telangana from 31.05.2021 to 09.06.202t by issuing directivcs to the concerned to implement the instrucr_ions therein strictly. Even in the said G.O., instruction N,os. 1 1 and 12 under the caption "Ceneral Instructions" is relevant tc, ,:xtract, wh'ch ale as under " 1 I . Any violation of the aforesaid instructions shall result in prosecution under Sections 51 tt 60 of I)isaster Management Act, 2005 and Sct tion I 88 of IPC as rvcll as other applicable laws. 12 No suit or legal proceedings shall lie agiLinst any pcrson lor anything done or intended kr be donc in good laith under these regulations.,,

17. ln vierv of the above, the contention of the petitioner that they have staged dhama for the cause of public only rnd, thus, their act would not amount to have committed any offence unCer Sections _ 188 of IPC and so also under Section - 3 of E.D. Act an<l Section - 51 of D.M. Act, is strstainable. 14 6,

18. Moreover, Section - 3 of the E.D' Act envisages that any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section lgg ofIPC. This court has aiready held that the pctitioners have not committed any offence, much less the offences under Section - 188 of IPC. 1 9. Section - 5 1 (b) of the D.M. Act prescribes punishment for obstruction, etc, whoever, without reasonable cause reluses to comply withanydirectiongivenbyoronbehalfoftheCentralGovernmentor the state Govemment or the National Executive cornmittee or the State Executive committee or the District Authority under this Act, shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment lor a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both, and if such obstruction or refusal to comply with directions results in loss of lives or imminent danger thereol shall on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years'

20. In the present case, there is no allegation of whatsoever against the petitioner. The only allegation against him is that he has conducted press meet. In view of the aforesaid, the allegation in 15 respect of the off-ence punishable under Section - 5l :t,) of the D.M. Act cannot be sustained against the accused.

21. Leaned counsel for the petitioner would cor tend that as per Section 60 of the DM Act, 2005, the Police cannot re.:ister a case on the cornplaint todged by 2"d respondent. 2nd respondent has to file a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. befole the learrr:d Magistrate. Without considcring the same, on the complaint ol 2 'd respon,lent, Police, Karnalapur, l'rave r:egistered the aforesaid crirne and leamed Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence uncle r Section j; 1(b) of DM Act.

22. In the light of the said submission, it is rel:r,ant to extract Section 60 of the DM Act:-

60. Cognizancc of offenccs -No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act exce;rt on a complaint matle by- (a)the National Authority, the State Authority, tlLe Central Governmert. the Statc Government, the District Authori.,y or any other authority or ofhccr authorised in this behalf by that ,\uthority or Government, as the case may be; or (b)any pcrson who has given noticc of not less than thinv days in the rnanncr prcscribed, ol thc alleged offence and his inlention to rnake a complaint to the National Authority, the State l,.uthority, thc Centlal Govcrnmcnt, the Statc Govemment, l-lLe District Authority or any other authority or officer authorised as rforesaid. t6 .f. (-

23. To attract the offence punishable under Section 285 ofIPC, there should be rash and negligent act with fire or any cornbustible matter so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be tikely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.-

24. As discussed supra, in the present case, the petitionc'r was not present with the other accused who bumt crackers. The only allegation against him is that he has conducted press meet. The contents of the complaint dated 08.06.2021 and statemcnts of witnesses L.Ws.l to 3 lacks the ir.rgredients of the olfence under Section 285 of IPC. Therefore, proceedings in thc aforesaid CC against the petitioner for the offence under Section 285 of IPC cannot go on. It is an abuse of proceedings of law.

25. The facts of the present case fall within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra).

26. Applying the principle laid down in the above said judgments and in view of the above said discussion, the present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.287 of 2024 pending on the file of Special Judiciat Magistrate of First Class for trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs at Hyderabad are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein alone. tl'-//.€ffi+,f,, 'r*/ 'f' t7 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed ASS //TRUE COPYII \ SD/- C. DEEPIKA ;taNr Recrsrnan r-'i\------:--- -- \l sEbrror.r oFFrcER To, 1 . the.Sp^ecialJudicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial of ,;ases relating to MP's & MLA's at Hyderabad. 2 One CC to Sri L. Pranathi Reddy, Advocate [OpUC 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies EPUgh (+ HIGH COURT DATED:1510712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7438 ot 2025 '- (] ir; 21 \\ 0_ \., [tT ?825 ,^\f >' t l .lir' ALLOWING THE CRL.PETITION. qA- 4 to )-i-