The High Court · 2025

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 quash the proceedings against the petitioneri accused No 2 in C.C. No. 4O3 of 2023 on the file of Learned Principal special Judicial First class Magistrate for Excise Cases, at HYderabad. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 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 including appearance of the petitioner/ accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 403 of 2023 on the file of Learned Principal Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, at Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T BALAMOHAN REDDY, learned counsel representing SRI R GlRl KUMAR' Advocate for the Petitioner and SRI PALLE NAGESHWAR RAO, the Public I I t i I I I I Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent No.2. the Respondent No.'l and none appeared for the The Court made the following: ORDER ,3 ORDER: HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O151 of 2025 { Heard Sri T.Balamohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri R.Giri Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner/ accused No.2 and Sri Palle Nageshwar Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.2 in C.C-No.4O3 of 2023 on the hle of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is the Chief Minister of Telangana State and he is accused No.2 in the aforesaid C.C. The offence alleged against him is under Section 188 of IPC.

2.d respondent lodged a complaint before Police, Garidepally Police Station, Suryapet District, alleging that on 19.1O.2OL9 at 11i00 t- A.M., when he was working as Model Code of Conduct (MCC) Team leader in Huzurnagar bye elections, he noliced that one meeting was conducted at Ponugodu Village and in that meeting, the petitioner/ accused No.2 along with accused No.1 were giving 2 KL, J Crl.P.No.10151 o12025 speech in favour of Congress Party and aft,:r enquiry, 2"d respondent carne to know that accusr, d No. 1 and petitioner/ accused No.2 have conducted meetinl: without taking any prior permission from the Returning Officer. {uzurnagar and as such, they have violated the Model Co,,ie of Conduct. Thereupon, Police, Garidepally Police Station, Strryapet District, registered a case in Crime No.267 ol' 2OL9 against petitioner/ accused No.2 and accused No.1 f or the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. DurinSr the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded tire statements of

2.d respondent as L.W. 1 , Revenue Inspector in llandal Revenue Office, Garidepally Mandal as L.W.2, Police Constable as L.W.3 and Videographer as L.W.4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet again st. petitioner and accused No.1 for the aforesaid offence and the sa:ne was taken on file by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate c ' First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad. The same was l,zrken on file as C.C.No.403 of 2023. Challenging the proceedings in the said C.C., petitioner/ accused No.2 filed the present Crimina Petition.

4. Whereas, learned Additiona-l P'r:rlic Prosecutor contended that petitioner and others have cct-,dttcted election campaign without obtaining prior permission arLc thus, they have @7/ -\s? )r// '-' // /, ,/, 3 KL, J Crl.P.No.lOI5l ot2025 violated the Model Code of Conduct. In the complaint lodged by 2'd respondent, there are specific allegations levelled against petitioner. The aJoresaid contentions of the petitioner are defences which he has to take during trial and it is lor the trial Court to con sider.

5. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.2 that there are no orders that were promulgated by any authority. Therefore, the question of violating the same by the petitioner does not arise. Investigating Oflicer did not follow the procedure Iaid down under Cr.P.C. and learned Magistrate without considering the aforesaid aspects took cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein. He further submits that the proceedings against accused No.l in the subject matter are quashed by this Court utde order dated

16.O7.2025 in Criminal Petition No.B865 of 2025.

6. In view of the above submissions, it is apt to note that Section 188 of IPC deats with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servarrt' and the same is extracted as under: "188. Disobedience to ordet duly promulgated by publlc senrant.-Whoever, l,cnowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant law{ully empowered to promulgate such order, KL, J Crl P No.10151 cf 20:J he is ciirected to aos 1..,, t.:crn a certain act, or t() take certain order rvith certain prcpcrty in his possession or under his managemcnt, disobeys such direction, sh;Lll . if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstructioll iurrroyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, €rnnoyance or r n1 rry, 16 6y person larvfully employed, be punished witJl sirr;le impris- onment for a term which may extend to one monr lr rr u.ith fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or wrlr ,oth; a:rd if such disol;edrence causes or trends to cause danltci to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to c:tLts,: a riot or aIlral,, shall be punished with imprisonm€nr of either description for a term which may extend to six mrl.r hs, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or. u. th both. Explanation.-lt is not necessary that h, r offender should intend to produce harm, or cont ('r plaLe his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sulll .i nt that he knows of the order which he disobeys, a l,:[ that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harn. Illustration An order is promulgated by a pLrl ic sewalrt lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, dir cc,ing that a religious procession shall not pass doun a cerlr.ir street. A knowingly disobeys the order, ald thereby causc.s dalger of riot. A has committed the offence delined in t]lis sL.::tron.',

7. It is a-1so apt to note that in N.T. R:rnra Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutorr, while c ealing with the offences under Sections 188 and 283 of IpC, thr: learned Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh r,-ld as under: "5) Even if the allegatron that tJle petitioner condr- cLed public meetings at three road junctions contraq/ to thr: p :rmission Criminal Petition No.5-r2l of 2009, icci;--r : r 17.09.2009 5 KL, J Crl.P.No.10Isr of2O25 accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistalt Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure maldates t1-at the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was fi1ed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Crimina-l Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners ald others is obviously in consequence to the alleged ollence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to ttre tralfic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to arry person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one w'itness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the tralfic, ttre same cannot be considered to be witJl necessar5r guilty mens rea to constrlre the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have i t 6 KL .I Crl.PNo.t0151of202s urny reasonable basis and in any view, the complrrint/ charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) rf Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its un-su:rtainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, thor. gh the lst accused alone approached this Court by way ol-1t,Ls Criminal Petition. "

8. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The Sr:ate 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 down by the H rn'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, rn.,re particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an r:xpress legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or .,L.: concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution ald continuance of the proceedings and/ or u,l- ere there is a specihc provision in the Code or the concernr:cl Act, providing efhcacious remedy to redress the grievance cf the party, the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature z:t Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesl- quashed the proceedings in the C.C. mentioned therein by e:rercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to te:1:nica1 defect of Criminal Petition No- 15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 (1992) Supp. I SCC 33s 7 KL, J Crl.P.No.10I5t of 2O25 obtaining prior permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint hled by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.

9. In the present case, Investigating Officer did not fol1ow the said procedure and without considering the same, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein. 1O. In Bhajan Lal's case (supra), the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingll' and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon arr enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or othenvise of the allegations made in the complaint or in FIR. In the said judgment, the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same read as under: "(1) Where tJle allegations made in the first inforrnation report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompalying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justiffing an investigation by police officers l I I i i i t' t I I It I i ! I I I B (L, J Crl P.No.1Ol51of2025 under Section ,156(1) of the Code except under ,rrL order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) oI tl e Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and tJle evidence collected in support oI r're same do not disclose the comrnission of any offence and r:rake out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not o: nstitute a coglizable offence but constitute only a n(rl cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police offi(ter w-ithout an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Ser:tion 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or comp ,rint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis ol which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion tl:at there is sufhcient ground for proceeding against the accu s..r (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted rr an), of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (ur-drr which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the ins:rr rLion and continuance of tJ. e proceedings and/or wherc rhere is a specifrc pror.ision in the Code or Act concerned provrding efhcacious redress for the grievance ofthe aggrievt_ d party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly ar_tt,nded with mala hde and/or where the proceeding is rraliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking \ :rngeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to p rivate and personal gr-udge." The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. 1 1 . As discussed supra, in the pres,: nt case, the Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure L,id down under Section 155 of Cr.p.C. arrd as such, contrr.r -ration of the 9 KL. J Crl-P.No.lOI5l oi2025 proceedings in the a-foresaid C.C, against petitioner/ accused No.2 is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against petitioner/ accused No.2 are liable to be quashed.

12. In the resuit, proceedings in C.C.No.403 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in respect of petitioner/ accused No.2 only

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is a-llowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// Sd/. SMT C DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFIGER ,l.ThePrincipalspecialJudicialFirstClassMagistrateforExciseCaSeSat Hyderabad.

2. The First Class Magistrate at Huzurnagar at Suryapet District' 3. The station House officer, Garidepally police station,Huzumagar, suryapet' 4. One CC to SRI R GlRl KUMAR Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two ccs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

6. Two CD CoPies GR K-- HIGH COURT DATED:1110812025 ORDER CRLP.No.10151 of 2025 "l . 23 ti, ru5 ,'. \-:.].\. ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION q co?aA Yt-