Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and othersl and argued that where the uncontroverted allegations made

Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash proceedings in C.C.No.17489 of 2019 pending before the XII Additional Chief trletropolitan lvlagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C.No.11489 of 2019 pending before the Xll Additional Chief lrletropolitan lvlagistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. This Petition r;oming on for hearing, upon perusing he Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing he arguments of Sri MD Nazeeruddin Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri V.Jithender Rao, Additional Pubtic Prosecutor on behalf of the Respond,,-t No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10413 ot 2025 ORDER: The petitioners are questioning their implication in C.C.No.17489 of 2019 on the file of Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, as accused Nos.3 and 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 171(B) and l7l(E) r/w Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC').

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2018, lhe Sub-lnspector of Police, Commissioner's Task Force, West Zone Team, Hyderabad received credible information through sources that a few hawala operators of Telangana working with some leaders of various political parties were planning to distribute huge amounts of money. The said money allegedly was to be meant for bribing the voters as well as Government officials involved in the election process. During checks, they intercepted A-3, who was coming on Bajaj Vikrant bike, on checking the bag of A-3, police found Rs.20 lakhs cash. The said amount of Rs.20 lakhs (Rs. 2000x100 notes x '10 bundles), one Bajaj Vikranth bike bearing No.TSOSFJ-3705 and one Samsung mobile phone were seized under panchanama, A-3 confessed that the money was being transported by him on the instructions of 4-6 from Volga Videos 2 ETD, J Crl.l,.No.10413 of 2025 .- -r-*a\l Office. Thereafter, A-3 was taken by the polic r to the office of M/s.Volga Videos at Panjagutta, Hyderabad and itund four persons i.e., A1 , M, A-4, A-5, on interrogation, they revi,aled their identity particulars and the police recorded the confe,sl;ion-cum_seizure Panchanama of the A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, in which tl-ey confessed to have committed this offence, the police seized thr{)() mobile phones and one cash receipt of Rs.20 Lakhs from thei, possession. The seized case property was deposited before the kra-ned XIV ACtvlM Court, Nampally, Hyderabad vide p.l.No.94 of 201 l.

3. According to the investigation, the s tid money i.e., Rs.20 lakhs was meant for bribing the voters as wrll as Government Officials involved in the election process, which r,,as in violation of Election Code of Conduct, for which reasons char61-^ sheet was filed.

4. Sri Mohd. Nazeeruddhin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that none of the allegal ons made in the charge sheet make out any of the offences allege,l under Sections 171(B) and 171(E)rlw Section 34 of the tpC.

5. He further submits that, reading of the prr: r, sions makes it abundantly clear that mere seizure of amounts anJ mobile phones from these petitioners would not entifle the police to prosecute them for the offences alleged. He relied on the judg nent of Hon'ble // 3 trTD, J Crl.P.No.1O413 of2025 Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and othersl and argued that where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and evidence collected in respect of the same do not disclose commission of any offence or make out any of the offences, then the same can be quashed. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Cou( in the case o'f S.B.Adityan v. S.Kandaswamf and S.Veeraraghavan v. Rajnikanths and argued that under similar circumstances, the Madras High Court had quashed the proceedings against the petitioners therein. He further submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court has already quashed the impugned charge sheet against accused Nos.1,2,4 and 5 and submitted to pass similar order.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits has not disputed the submission with regard to the orders passed by a co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.8064 of 2023

7. ln the present case, the police found an amount of Rs.20 lakhs in cash from the possession of accused No.3 on 22.11.2018 and confession statement of accused No.3 is that the said money was being transported on the ' 1992 Srpp (l) Supreme Court Cascs 33.5 t eln 1958 Supreme Couri 857 ' 1997 (2) MwN (Cr.) 290 4 ETD' J ( r'1.P.No.10413 of 2025 1 instructions of accused No.6. The alleged elections rvere scheduled in the month of December, 2018. For the sake of convenience, Section 171-B & E of IPC are extracted hereunder

1714. Bribery: (l)Whoever (i) gives a gratification to any persor .tlith the object of thducing him or any other person to exe c'se any electoral right or of rewarding any person fc, having exercised any such right; or (ii) accepls either for himsel{ or for any other p(' :;on any gratification as a reward for exercising any such rutnt or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person k: exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery: Pro . ned thal a declaration of public policy or a promise of pu!.' tr, action shall not be an offence under this section. (2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, u ',ifers or aftempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemeo t. give a gratification. (3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or alt.)mpts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to ii.cept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratifice icn as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do ', r as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be d. emed to have accepted the gratification as a reward." 171-E Punishment for bribery: Whoever c:ommils the offence of bribery shall be wnished with imprisonment of either description for a term A ti;h may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: pro\' (l-^d that bribery where the gratification consr.sfs in foc. ! drink, enbrtainment, or provision.

8. To attract an offence punishable J lder Section 171-E of lPC, the ingredients of Section 171-B ot il)C have to be fulfilled. lf a person gives any gratification to any person for exercising any electoral right or for having exercis;:(l such right or ac6pts such amount from any person as a rewa ri for exercising 5 ETD, J Crl.P.No.10413 of 202S any right or inducing or attempts to induce any person in exercise of such rights amounts to bribery. ln the present case, the amounts were allegedly found in the possession of 43. The police assumed that the said amounts are meant for political leaders to bribe the voters in the ensuing elections of December, 2018. Admittedly, no person was bribed or any money was accepted by those people for such purpose of exercising electoral franchise. For the said reasons, the offence under Section 171-8 of IPC is not made out and consequently, the question of prosecuting these petitioners for the offence of bribery punishable under Section 171-E of IPC does not arise. ln the present case, the political leaders for whom the amounts were meant to be given are not identified. Mere possession of cash would not attract an offence

9. A perusal of record reveals that, on the notice of Sub-lnspector of Police, WCO Team-ll, CCS, Hyderabad, 41 ( produced all the relevant documents including books of accounts pertaining to M/s.Volga Videos, which reveals that there was a cash balance of Rs.20.62 lakhs as on 22.11.2018. ln the said circumstances, it cannot be said that mere seizure of the said amount from the possession of ,A3, who is the employee of the 41 and the confession statement of accused No.3 that he was transporting money on the instructions of accused No.6 would entail I I 6 ETD, J i,r1.P.No.10413 of 2025 prosecution of the petitioners. On the basis of thl assumptions of the investigating authorities that it was meant for fu trirng the political leaders to contest the elections in December, 2018 e ections, cannot in any manner sustain the prosecution against thes,: petitioners.

10. ln the result, the proceedings against t're se petitioners/ accused Nos.3 and 6 in C.C.No.'|7489 of 2019 :,t the file of Xll Additional Chiet Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally -lyderabad, are hereby quashed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicat rns, if any, shall stand closed. SD,. P.PONNA KRISHNA REGTSTRAR {siilsTANT //TRUE COPY// SEcTIoN oFFIcER To, 1 2 3 4 5 The Xll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Namp rl y, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, F t erabad. One CC to Sri. MD Nazeeruddin Khan Advocate [OPU( ] Two CCs to Plrblic Prosecutor, High Court for the State :,r Te!angana. [OUT] Two CD Copiers YJR w HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 .,4. ,:'.. i ,'r/ i tlT :ir'1 ORDER CRLP.No.1O413 of 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED.