Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the .arguments of Sri v. Aravind, representing Sri Sridhar Chikyala

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C 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 petitioner/accused No.3 in C C.No.558 of 2019 on the fite of Hon'bte Additionat Judicial First Class Magistrate (PCR) at Karimnagar, for U/Sec. l7'l-E, 188 lpC. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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.558 of 2019 on the file of Honble Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate (pCR) at Karimnagar, for U/S 171-E, 188 lP C pending disposal of the above Crimrnal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the .arguments of Sri V. Aravind, representing Sri Sridhar Chikyala, Advocate for the petitioners and M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared forthe Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER --j= *w THE HON'BLB SRI JUSTTCE J. SREEI{ VAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8227 OI 2022 ORDER: This criminal petition has been frled seirl ing to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.558 ol 2019 on the fiie ol \dditional Judicial First Class Magistrate (PCR) at Karimanagar fo- the oflence under Sections l7l-E, 188 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' h,r brevity).

2. Heard Sri V.Aravind, learned counsel, repr: ;enting Sri Sridhar Chikyala, learned counsel for the petitioners, S i M.Vivekananda Reddy, Ieamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for res1,r ndent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits hat the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were ia sely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the comple nt and the charge sheet there are no allegations against them to attract ingredients for the offences under Section 171-E, 188 of IPC. He fir her submitted that the petitioners were not present at the scene of off'e: :e.

3. i. Learned counsel for the petitioners further r;, bmits that there is no abetment and there is no gratihcation by thr: petitioners to any person including voter with the object ol inducing J im to exercise any electoral\ote in favor of anybody. The saiti aspects were not 2 JSR, J Crlp a227_2O22 considered by the Investigating Officer. He did not examine any voter to prove the offence under Section 17lB of IPC i.e., Bribery. He further submits that basing on the statement of respondent No.2 only the Investigation Officer laid chargc sheet against the petitioners. The petitioners have not violated any orders issued by the election authorities. The Investigating Otficer and the leamed Magistrate without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr P C' for brevity) filed charge sheet while taking cognizance for the above said offence under Section 188 ofIPC against the petitioners.

3.2. In support of his contention, leamed counsel relied upon the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.l5Z and 5696 of 2025 dated

18.08.2025.

4. Per contra,leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have committed grave oflence and the Investigation Officer after following the due procedure filed final report. Whether the petitioners have committed the oflence or not, the same has to be revealed after full fledged trial and at this stage petitioners are not entitled to seek quash ofproceedings i E , 5'.;.:i E" 3 JSR, J crlp 4227 2022

5. Having considered the rival submissions mai: by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available r r record, it reveals that basing on the complaint of respondent No. rSub-lnspector of Police, Crime No.25 of 2019 is registered for the oll :nce under Section 170-E and 188 of IPC. The Investigation Offlcr: filcd final report basing on the submissions of LWI to LW5 who ar r panch witnesses. 'fhe Investigating Officer has not examined anv 'oter to prove the offence under Section 171B of IPC. In respect o1' rimilar allegations this Court in Crl.P.No.152 and 5696 of 2025 quaslL, d the proceedings irr C.C.No.7l69 of 2024 for the of'fence under Sectic n lT lB Read with lTlE and 188 Read with 109 of IPC leveled agrinst the accused therein. This Court after taking into consideration the principle laid tlown in Thota Chandra Sekhar Vs. The State of 4ndhru Pradeshl and also in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LaP r4uas\ cl the proceedings in C.C.No.7l69 of 2024. ln this Case also very sinr lar allegations are leveled against the petitioner and the ingredients L:r der Section 171E and 188 E of IPC are not attracted against the petiticr er.

6. ln Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court cauti: red that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and r i 'cumspection and ' crlp.No. 15248 of 2016, dated 26.10.20t6 ? (r992) Supp.\SCC 135 .. 4 JSR, J Ctlp 8227 2022 that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Couft cannot embark 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 laid down certain guidelinesiparameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under "( I ) Where the allegations rnade in thc first information report or the complaint, even if they arc taken at their face value and accepted in tl.rcir cntircty do not prirna facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first infbnnation report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifyng an investigation by police officcrs under Section 156(l) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section I 55(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cogrizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police ofhcer i t I I Ii 1 ] ! { I i L 5 JSR,.I Ctlp 8227 2022 without an order of a Magistrate as contempli ted under Section 155(2) of thc Code. (5) Whcrc the allegations made in the FIR or c( r ,plaint arc so absurd and inherently improbable on the bir.i of rvhich no prudent person can ever reach a just con,:l rsion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding r ainst the accused (6) Where there is an express legal bar engralit r in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerr :d (undcr which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to th,: nstitutlon ( and contrnuance of the proceedings and/or rvhc i there is a specitic provision in the Code or Act concemcr. providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggn: 'ed party. (7) Whcre a criminal proceeding is manifest ) attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is r lliciously institutcd with an ulterior motive for wreaking engeancc on thc accused and with a view to spite him du: lo private and pcrsona[ grudge. The said principte was reiterated by the Hon'ble 1\r )x Court in catena of decisions

7. For the fbregoing reasons as well as the orj )rs passed by this Court in Crlp.No. I 52 and 5696 of 2025 dated 08.0 j 2025 and also the principle laid down in Bhajan Lal supra, continuat )n of proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Secti ,ns l7l-E, 188 ol 6 JSR, J Ctlp 8227_2022 IPC is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, quashed

8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER 1 The Additional Judicial First Ciass Magistrate (PCR), Karimnagar 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korutla 3. The Station House Officer, Korutla Police Station, Jagtial 4. Two CCs to Public Prdsecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 5 One CC to Sri Sridhar Chikyala, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] \ \ To, AB PSLJ HIGH COURT DATED: 2411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.8227 of 2022 \ t,J ,.! 1 .s * ^i Rf, Ai;'t$li a. =*\ \- )l- ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION