Karnataka v. Hemareddy,, wherein, at paragraph No.g, it is held as follows

The State of.Telangana, Through S.H.O, p S Jagtial Town, Rep by its public Prosecutor, High Court at Hydelabad, K. Jayesh Reddy, , S/o Not Known, Aged about Not Known, Occ: lnspector of Police, P.S. Jagtial Town,Jagtial. ...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C., RA / 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 FIR against the petitioners in C.R.No,412 of 2020,on the file of Police Station Jagtial Town at Jagtial, Jagtial District for the offences punishable U/s.1BB, 271 of lpc and sec 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1897. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, lhe High Court may be pleased to-stay all further proceedings including appeararrce of the petitioner herein in C R.No.412 of 2020, On the file of Police Staticn,Jagtial Town at Jagtial, Jagtial District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tl'e Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SHAIK MUHAIUMED ABED, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Pubtic Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No 1 and None Appearted for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER i j HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMIN AL PETITION No.13 831 ot 2024 ORDE R: This Criminal petition is filed under Sectio n 52g of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.412 oI 2024 of pS Jagtial Town at Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 271 of lpC and 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (for short 'Act').

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent_State and perused the record.

3. Basing on the comptaint dated .l

1.OB.2O2O lodged by the 2'd respondent-the lnspector of police, Jagtial police Station, that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and others, who belonged to PFI Party were gathered at Government Hospital, Jagtial, without maintaining sociar distance and demanded to ailow them to perform the last rites of the dead body of one Ahmed, who was died due to suspected Covid-.l9, violating the lockdown orders issued by the Health Department, Government of Telangana, a I 2 case in Crime No.412 of 2O2O was registe.ed against the petitioners and others

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been farsery impricated in the case. He further submits that Section i95(i)(a) of Cr.p C. bars taking cognizance of the offence under Section 1Bg of lpC, except on the complaint in writing of the public se.vant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. ln the present case, the complaint wars lodged by the de facto complainant, who is not a competent per!;on, the.present FIR is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the offence under Section 3 rtrt the Act, shall be deemed to have been committed under Section .lBg of lpC. When Section 188 of IPC warrants filing of a private complaint, the same restriction applies to Section 3 of the Act also. Since the prime offence under Section 18B of lpC is barred by Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings; are without jurisdiction

5. ln support of his contention, learned counse for petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of 3 Karnataka v. Hemareddy,, wherein, at paragraph No.g, it is held as follows: " We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which ho complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(i) (b) of the Code of Criminal Piocedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub_section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(i)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld" (Emphasis supptpd) Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners

6. Learned Additional public prosecuior, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have also been charged with the offences other than 1gg of IpC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners, basing on the final report filed by the police, as such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by ' AIR t98l sc l+tz 4 .J the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one withoLrt authority of Law. He further submitted that the truth or other^/ise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayerl to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sake of convenience' Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr'P C are extracted hereunder' ?y .i .' 188 of IPC' Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Whoever' knowing that, by an order promulgated public servant lawfully empowered to promrrlgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or undqr his management, disobeys such direction' slrall' if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury' or rsk of obstruction, annoyance or injury' to any llerson lawfully employed' be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extr:nd to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees' or with both; and il such disobedience causes or trends to cause 'Janger to human life' health or safety' or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray' shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months' or wrth fine which may extend to one thousand rupees' or with both 5 195 of Cr.P.C-. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 lo 188 (both inclusive)of the lndian Penal Code (45 of,1860), or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate... (b)(i)of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the lndian Penal Code (45 of '1860), namely, sections '193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusi,ve) and 228, when such offence is alleged to htve been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii)of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii)

8. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioners 6 for the offence under Section 188 of IPC have treen initiated, basing on the complaint made by the de facto conrplainant' who is a Police Officer, but not on the basis of complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, as is required r- nder Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.PlC. Therefore, the proceedings; against the petitloners for the offence under Section 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed. lnsofar as other offences i-e., 27'l of IPC and Section 3 of the Act are concerned' as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemareddy's case (supra), it is clear that if the offences formed part of the same transaction'dt tne offences contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C, it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of tlfe petitioners' Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance ol'the aforesaid offences against the petitioners stands vitia':ed and the continuation of criminal proceedings against tlre petitioners amounts to abuse of Process of law. ln view of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is

9. allowed and the proceedings against the petiti'rners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.4 12 of 2024 of PS Jagtial 1-own at Jagtial District, are herebY quashed. 7 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending' shall stand closed ,/TRUE COPY// Sd,- MOHD. ISMAIL SS]STANT REGISTRAR A E TION OFFICER To, 2-TheStationHouseofficer,JagtialTownPoliceStation,Jagtial.

1. The Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial' i Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of relangana at " nvi.ir-uroi ourt 4One CC to SRISHAIK MUHAMMED ABED Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies " s Pcsd/gh I l I! HIGH COURT DATED:0 5102t2025 I J $6 SrAr5 /.,-- 1+ 11 r'1\fl ?u6 i i I \. i{z \. t 0': s pr.,i ,, ORDER CRLP.No.13831 of 2024 d ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION w's W