It is also apt to note that in N,T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorl, while dealing

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 in C.C. No. 403 oI 2023 on the file Spl. JFCIT/I for Excise Cases Hyderabad, against the Petitioner /Accused No. 1 including the personal appearance of the Petitioner /Accused No. '1 , pending disposal of the criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Srt Madupu Shashikanth, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITI ON No.8865 of2025 ORDER: Heard lear ned counscl for petitioner/ acc r;sed No.1 and learned Additionrrl Public Prosecutor appearing for .r:spondents.

2. This r'plp16al pctirior.r is liled under Scction 528 of Bharativa Nagarrk Surakshar Sanhita, 2023 (BNSl'rl. to quash the proceedings agairst rhe petitio,er/ accused No.1 ir c.Cr.No.403 of 2023 on the file .f' the lear.ecl Specral Judicial Mzr listrate of First Class for Excise Clases. Hvderarbacl.

3. Petitior-rer herein is :rccused No.1 in tl-rr: af6rs..i4 g.a. The offence alleged against him is under Sectio r 1gB of IpC. 2"d respondent lorlged a complzrint before police, GzL iclepalry porice Station, Suryapet Disrricr. alleging tllat on 19.1t) 20 l9 at 1 1OO A.M., 'u,hen he uas vvorking as Model Code of r_onduct (MCC) Team leader in I'l,zurnzrgar b-\,e elections, he n.t ir:ed that one meeting n'as conducted at ponugodu village and ir that meeting the petitioner/ acc ur sed No.1 arong r,r,ith accused N,r 2 *.ere giving lavour of Congress party and after. cnquiry, 2n,l speech in came to kno'"rr that accr_rsed Nos.1 :rnd 2 have conducted meetingl u,ithout taking any prior permr s sion from the re spondent 2 KI-,.' Crl I) \o ljsa)a oi 2a)2j Returning C)fficer, Huzurnagar atrd as such, they have violated the Model Code ol Conduct. Thereupon, Police, Garidepally Police Station, Sun'apet District, registered a case in Crime No.267 of 2019 against petitioner/ accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offence pur-rishable under Scction 188 of IPC. During the coursc of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of 2n,l rcspondent as L.W. l, Revenue Inspector in Mandal Revenue Office, Caridepallv Mandal as L.W.2, Police Constabie as L.W.3 and Vidcographer as L.W.4. After completion of investigation, the Investigatir.rg Officer laicl charge sheet against petitioner and accused No.2 lor thc aforesaid offence and the same was taken on file by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hvderabad. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.403 of 2023. Challenging the proceedings in the said C.C., petitioner/ accused No. 1 filed the present Criminal Petition

4. Whcreas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that petitioner and others have conducted election campaign u,ithout obtaining prior permission and thus, they have violated the Model Code of Conduct. In the complaint lodged by 2",r respondent, there are specific allegations levelled against petitioncr. The aforesaid contentious o[ the petitioner are deleuces J 3 Ll_..l a I l' \r) sSl)r (i1 202a which he has to take durir-rg trierl zrnd it is lor tlr: trial Court to consi d e r

5. It is the specific contention of learned -ounsel for the petitioner/ accuse'd No.l that therc are no or. ers that nere promulgated by an-v authority. Thcrclore, the ques ion of violating the same by the petitioner does not arise. Investig: ting Officer did not lollor,r' the procedr-rre laid dorvtr urnder Cr.l).( I. and learned Magistrate without considering t he aloresaid aspects took cognizance of the aforesaicl oflence against the petit oner herein

6. In vierv of the above submissions, it is z pt to note that Section I 88 of I PC deals u.itl-r 'disobedience o order dulv promulgated by I public servant' and the samc rs extracted as under: " 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated lry public servant.-Whoever, knou.ing th.it, l)\' an ordcr pr-onrt lgated by a public servilnt lawlully empou,crcrl to promlrlgitte sr ch order, he is directerl to abstain from it ccrtain act, or to ti,] e certain order with certain property in lris possession or I rrder his management. disobe.ys suc'h clircction, shall, ii such disobedrence carJses or tends to caluSc obstruction. it lroyance or injury, or rrsk of obstructiotl, ann()yilncc or rnjrrr !. to any pt:rson lawfullv employed, bc ptrnishcd with simpl ' impris- onment for a tt'rm whrch ma5, ertcncl to onc month or r,.,ith hne u,hich may e::tend to tu.o hr-rndrcd rllpecs, or u.ith b,r h; ancl if strch rlisobed;cltce causes or trcrlcls to c:tllse datrgt.r t I humal 4 KL. J Crl P No 8865 oi 20)5 life, health or safcty, or causcs or tends [o cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with irnprisonment of cither description for a term which may extend to sL{ months, or with fine which mav extend to onc thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-lt is not necessa{/ that the offender should intcnd to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likcly to produce harm. It is sufficicnt that he knows o[ Lhc orclcr which hc disobeys, ald that his disobedience procluccs, or is likely to produce, harm. Illustration Arr ordcr is promulgated by a public servant lawfully cmporvered lcr promulgatc such order, directing that a rcligious processiorr sl-rall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly clisobel,s the ordcr, ald thereby causes dalger of riot- A has commltted thc oflcnce dehned in this section."

7. It 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 Se ctions 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under: "5) Even if thc allcgation that the peLitioner conducted public meetirrgs al lhrcc road junctions contiary lo the permission accorded for conducling o[ a pubhc meeting only at one specified placc is true, such a direction under Section 3O of the Police Act, 186 I could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistalt Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of Lheir subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 3O of the Police Act, 1861 alld is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandatcs tl'rat thc complaint in this regard has to be made by thc public servimt concerned or some other person r. Clinrinal ['ctit(rn No 5]ll ol 1009. dccrdecl ou 17.09.2009 5 til_..1 ( I l, \1' aarrr ol 20)r to rvhom suclr a public scrvant is irclrrrinistrittrvt'lt .r lrorrlinlttc to enable artv Court to tal<c cognizancr: oI an ofl r, r' rur(lcr Section 188 of Code ol Criminal Proc<'rlrrrt'. In tl r prcst'nt carse, lhe chiuge sheet 'was lllcrl by tl.rc Sub [nsl)('( 1,) rrl l)olicc, r,^,'[ro could nol hitve bcen the aut]ror ity to grilllt 1;r'r r rrssiort lor thc public firccting ancl thcrc[orc, thc cornPlairrt/i:lr rrgr: sht:et is in violation of the mandatory provisrorr of Scr:tir,r l()5(l)(a) of Code of Cr-rmrnal Procedurt:. (, That apart, tl're offcnce :rllegerl to lrirvt' l)t'crr onrrnittcd ttnder Secticn 283 of the Indian Pc'nal Codc bv thc rr titionc rs ar-rd othcrs is obviously in conseqrrcncc l() tlrc :rllt'r 'rl olli'nce r-rudcr Sectio;r 188 of Indian Pt:rrirl Cotlr, :rrr<l ,.i ltoL en independent of thc same. Even othcrrvisc, rtrt' r rrrrlrrct of public meeting at three roacl junctions ()r ()l)stru( t orr to the traffic could not have been consiclt:rcrl rrs cirrrsin;,. r rr clrrrrgcr or injury to anl. person. In so far as tlrc oltstrlLc r, r in iLrry public way i:; concerned, lr,hich can also lrc covcrt'rl r Scctiorr 283 of the In<lian Penal Code, the ch:rrgc shcct <:ilr.r onlr onc rr.,itness to speak about the traffic ..;am t':rLrs<,rl l;, rhe road show. Bttt, ,vhen the conduct ol tlte pLl l)llC lncoting rr lc:rst at one place h,:rs been permitted anrl r[ tltc gathcr irr I lirr lhat public meeting rcsulted in any incorrvt:nrcrr< r' lr r,r,ay of obstructing he traffic, the samc cannol l)c consir r r ,.d 1o lte u,ith necessary guilty mens rea to constrlrc tl.rc cxis:, rrcr-' of :rn offence punrsl'rable under Indiarr Pcnal Cork'. I rrrler t]rc circumstaJrcos, none of the ofler-rces irllcgecl c:rn l;c s:r rl to have any reasonal;lc basis and in any vicw. lht: c<;rn1;lri rr/chirrgc sheet being ir.r violation of Section 195 ( I ) (.i) o Cocle of Criminal Pro,:t:dure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has f:riled duc to its ur.r strst rrnzrbility, the proceedingls in their entirety have to lail, tliou,: r tht, l st accttsed alone approached this Cotrrr l;y r,r,:r y of tlris Crintjnal Petition." 6 KI--.I Crl P No 3465 ot 2025

8. 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 dor,r'n by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that rvhere 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 continuance of the proceeclings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Codc or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress tl're grievance of the party, the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the C.C. men tior-red therein by exercising power under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C. It is further held that the proceedings shall not be continurcd due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section I95(l )(a) of Cr.P.C. I Criminal Pelition No.l524ll ol-l0l(r. clccirle'tl oll6 l0.l0l6 I lros:; Supp I SCC 315 7, 7 ( t\L_..1 l' \() lt8a): (), 2oll

9. In the prcsent case, Investigating Ollii.r r. rlirl r-rot follow. the said procedrtl'e and r,r,ithout considering tltc r;ante, Iearned Magistrate tool< cognizanct: of the aforesaid ollcr c t' ztgzrinst the petitioner herein.

10. In Bhajan Lal,s case (supra), thc Apex ( 0 rtrt cautioned that pou,er of quashing should be exercised vcr-.. spa rinel-v and circumspection an cl that too in the rarest ol- r.) t-( ('irs(,s. While examining a complaint, quashing of r,r,hich is sougl r . Co Llrt cran not embark upon an c-nquiry as to the reliabrlit-v or- 1 c ltttincncss or otherr.vise of the allegations made in the complain r the said judgnrcnt, the Apex Court laicl ,rr in FlR. In lou n certain guidelines/ parameters for exercise of pou,ers lrr.rclcr. S cc t io r-r 482 of Cr.P.C. The same read as under. "( 1) Wherc the allegations made in the first inform.r r )r r r(.p()rr or the compliLint, evcn if they are taken al thcir [acr. , rltrt. lrncl accepted in their entirety do not ltrima fircie consr l]te ztnv offence or make out a case against thc accused. (2) Where thr: allegations in the first informatior.r r( t)()r i iutri other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR clo rlrt < rsr.losc :r cognizable offence, justifying an invcstigation by ltolir olfir.r:rs under Scctiorr l56(1) of the Code except ur.rdcr zrn r .rlr:r of a Magistr-ate wil hin the pun,icw of Section 155(2) r>t tlrr totk.. (3) Where the unconlro\.erted allegations maclt: rn t I ,. I.-lll or complaint anrI the evidcnce collected in slrpport of th . srrrnt rlo not disclose thc commission of any offencc anrl rr)ir ,(. olll il _- _"o"" against tirrt acctrsed. \ B H l-. l Crl IrNo l'll'165 of 2025 (4) Where thc erllcgatrons in thc FIR do not constitutc a cognizablc offence but constitutc onlv a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is pcrmittcd lx-a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contcmplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations macle rn (hc FIR or complaint arc so absurd and inherently improbilblt: on thc basis of which no prudent person car evcr rcach zt jt.tsl conclusion that thcrc is sufhcicnt ground for proceedir.rg:rgillnst thc accused. (6) Where there is an exprcss lcgal l;ar cngraftcd in any of the provisions of the Code or thc Act cortccrnccl (under which a criminal proceeding is institr,rtccl) to tl'rc institution and continuance of the procct--dings :rrrrl/or '"r'here therc is a specific provision in the Codc or A( t conccrned, providing cfficacious redress for thc gricvzrnct: of llrc aggrieved party. (7) Wherc a criminal procecding is r.nirnifcstl,y attended with mala fide and/or wherc tl'rc proccccling is maliciously instituted with al ulterior motivc for '"vre:rking vengeancc on the accused and with a vicw to spite him duc to private and personal grudge." The said principle was reitcrated b1- the Apex Court in a catena of decisions.

11. As discussed supra, in the present case, the Investigating Officer did not follou, the procedure laid down under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. ar-rd as such, continuation of the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. agalnst petitioner/ accused No.1 ls an abuse of process of iau,. Thcrefore, the proceedings in the - 9 .l .J r I t' \.o 5!r,; ,)1 ,)O.) r erforeszricl C.C. against petitiollcr/ accuscd No.1 r re ]iable ro be quashed

12. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.40l ol 2C23 on the file of the learn.rl Special Judicial Magistrate fc,r Excise Cases, Hyderabad, are ltereby quashed in respect of pet tioner-,/ accuscd No.1 only. I ll . Accorrlingly, this Criminal petition is alt, ,rved Miscellaneor-rs applications, it any pendirL;1, sl.rall srrtnd clo secl. //TRUE COPY// * SD/.G.JYOTHI / ' h$.'irANT REGIsTRAR / \i' \ sEc.;N oFFrcER ' To, 1 . The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise cas es,Hyderabad 2- The Judicial First ClassMagistrate at Huzurnagar. 3. The Station House Officer, Garidepally Police Station, Sr ryapet District 4. One CC to Sri tvladupu Shashikanth, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Stale of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies SM/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 1610712025 ) ,1. r, ORDER CRLP.No.8865 of 2025 ,i:' i] - \:.. _-, "\. 1- '\ 0 7 0il 2s25 :' ,"i \i.' r,- ' -.: -.- -._ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION