The High Court · 2025

1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court' Hyderabad, TS.

2. Sri V Narender, Sub-lnspector of Police, Bhavani Nagar P.S., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTOCOMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying ft i t in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petitir n, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 991 of 2)24 pending before the Vlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad < :rresponding to Crime No. 165 of 2023 dated 30/1 1/2023 U/s.18B of tpC Sectcr 171 (C) Rlw. 171 (F) R /w. 34 of IPC; Section 126, 130, 1313 of Representati() r of peoples Act, 1951, on the file of Bhavani Nagar Police station, Hyderabad, i gainst the petitioners / A-1 to A-9. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying tha in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal peti,irn,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including t re appearance of the Petitioners /A-1 to A-9 in c.c. No.991 of 2024 pentirl before the vlll Addt. chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad correspond r g to crime No. 165 of 2023 dated 30.11.2023 U/s. 188 of tpC; Section 121 (C) t'.tw. 171(F) R/w. 34 of IPC; Section 126, 130, 1313 of Representation of peopl,-,;Act, 1951, on the file of Bhavani Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusirr, the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the I guments of Sri M A MUJEEB ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Ranr rchandra Reddy Addl Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1&2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.I4779 ot 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.991 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences under Sections't88, 171(C) read with 171(F) read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC') and Sections 126, '130, 131 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

2. Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State. Perused the record.

3. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the Police, Bhavani Nagar have registered a case in Crime No.165 of 2023, dated 30.11.2023 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. ln the complaint dated 30.1 1.2023, the respondent No.2 has stated that while he was patrolling in the limits of P.S. Bhavani Nagar, he noticed that the accused No.'l , lvho is serving as the Election Agent for the AIMIM candidate in the Yakutpura-68 constituency roaming and talking with the public along with eight other individuals on four motor cycles. Then, he had suspicion that the said individuals do not belong to the Yakutpura constituency and they are potentially engaging in activities aimed at influencing or intimidating voter, and further he has arso observed that those peopre are lpproaching the voters and talking with them it is rikery to threaten to cast t,-' )ir votes to a particurar party. Hence the present complaint. 4' Learned counser for the petitioners submits ar rt the petitioners have been falsery impricated in this case without making z ny preriminary enquiry and without taking any permission from the rearnr: r Magistrate and has routinely registered the present case, which is nothing t ut abuse of process of law' lt is further contended that the contents of compre i rt do not make out any offences as afleged. rt is further contended that in th. simirar circumstances, this court quashed the criminar proceedings against ,1 ) petationers therein in criminar Petition No-14745 0f 2024 and the petiti,) rers herein are arso standing on the same footing and prayed to extend t1) same benefit to the present petitioners also and prayed to allow this Crimin,r petition

5. On the other hand, learned Additional public pr:;ecutor appearing for the state-respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that there, rre triabre issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accu; )d Nos.1 to g at this jurrcture and the matter is to be decided after conductir; triar by the rearned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal petition 6' ln view of the facts and circumstances of the prese ..,t case on hand, it is apt to refer section 1BB of rpc which dears with ,disotr promulgated by a public servant'and the same is extra(jl€ dience to order dury I as under. "788. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public seruant--Whoever, knowing that, by an order promutgated by a public servant lav,tully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with ceftain propefty in h/b possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger 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 with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.-lt is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. lt is sufficient that he knows of the order which he drsobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. lllustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lavvfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall nof pass down a ceftain street. A knowingty dt'sobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of iot. A has committed the offence defined in this section." 7 . lt is also apt to note that in N.T.Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Publb Prosecutorr while dealing with the offences under Sections 1BB and 283 of lPC, learned Single Judge held as under: I Criminal Petition No.5323 of2009. decidcd on 11.09.2O0g r fl .Ev9n. if .the allegation that the 1t conducted public meetings at three road ir contrary to the permission accorrl . of a public meeting only cond.ucting "directL specified place is true, such a Section 30 of the police Act, 1g61 corr been given only by the Superintendent Assrstant Superintendent of police of thc but not by any of their subordinates. ll permission is granted under Section 30 Police Act, 1861 and is violated, S""i.n (a) of Code of Criminal proceduie ,"nd,,. the complaint in this regard has to be rr the public servant concerned or som€ person to whorn such a public seri administratively subordinate to enable arr to_ take cognizance of an offence ,nOui i 188 of Code of Criminal procedure. present case, the charge sheet was filec Sub lnspector of police, who could not ha I the authority to grant permission for thc meetlng. and therefore, lhe complainl/ sheet is in violation of the mandatory prori Section 19S(1)(a) of Code of Criminj procr ltitioner nctions :d for at one J have or the District such a of the r95 (1) :s that rde by ant is Court ;ection n the by the l been public :harge ;ion of dure. That apart, the offence alleged t: I been committed under Section 283;f th€ Penal Code by the petitioners and ot r :lyiorly in consequence to the afleged : under Section 1gB of lndian penal C"ode not an independent of the same. Even othE .conduct of public meeting at thre,: Juncttons or obstruction to the traffic cort have been considered as causing any dan injury to any person. ln so far aJthe'obstr in any public way is concerned, which can ir covered by Section 283 of the inAian penai- the charge sheet cites only one witnessl to about the traffic jam caused by the road tsut, when the conduct of the public meet least at one place has been permitted antl gathering for that public meeiing resulted i rnconvenience by way of obstrlcting the t tne same cannot be considered -to b,: necessary guilty mens rea to construe :rs is rnd is wise, d not ler or rction so be lode, ;peak ;how. rg at if the r any 'affic, \ existence of an offence punishable under lndian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complainUcharge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. !) As the complaint has failed due to its un- sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition."

8. ln Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari Districd relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Raol and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where 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 proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. lt further held that the proceedings shall not be continued 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 195 (1) (a) of 2 Criminal Petition No.l 5248 of20l6, decided on 26. 10.2016 t lteez; supp. t SCC 33s ) Cr.P.C. 9' ln view of the above, the rnvestigating offir er did not forow the procedure raid down under section 155 0f cr.p.c. Fur rer, the contents of the charge sheet incruding statements of tist of witnesse s do not discrose any incriminating materiar so as to attract the ingredients rf Section 1gB of rpc. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitior :rs_accused Nos.1 to g for the offence under Section 1Bg of lpC are liable to trr quashed.

10. Section - 126 of the Representation of pr: rples Act deals with Prohibition of pubric meetings during period of forty-r: 3ht hours ending with hour fixed for concrusion of po[, it is rerevant and 1 1e same is extracted below:- "(1) No person shall_ (a) convene, hold, attend, join or addrr:r s any public meeting or procession in connection r, ,ith an election; or (b) display to the public any election mat 3r by means of cinematograph, television or other ;imilar apparatus; or (c) propagate any election matter to the pu >tic by holding, or by arranging the holding of, any r tusical concert or any theatrical performance or an y other entertainment or amusement with a view to attract "rg the members of the public thereto, in any polling are:r Juring the period of forty-eight hours ending with the hor_ - fixed for the conclusion of the poll for any election I that polling area. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisit rs of sub- section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to tvvo years or with fine, or with both. (3) In this section, the expression "election mattef' means any matter intended or calculated to influence or affect the result of an election."

11. As held above, the contents of charge sheet coupled with the statements of the witnesses, lacks the ingredients of Section 126 of the Representation of Peoples Act. 12 Section - 171 (C) of IPC deals with the offence whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election 13 Section - 171 (F) of IPC deals with Punishment for undue influence at an election; Whoever commits the offence of undue influence at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both

14. As stated supra, the contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet, which is outcome of entire investigation including statements of list of witnesses do not disclose any involvement of the petitioners herein in undue influence or interference at an election. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the above offences are not attracted.

15. ln the case of Bhajan Lal3, the Hon'ble Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and -) that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a :omplaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquir.T as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the aflegations made in the i rR or in the compraint. The Hon'ble Apex court in the said judgment raid dc certain guiderines/ parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 4g2 0. cr.p.c., which are as ^/n under: (!l Wlere the altegations made in the frrst info rnation y?ott o1 the comptaint, even if they are taien n their i::?^y,r",.?rd accepted in their entirety do no prima raae constitute anv offence or make out a case gainst the accuserl (:!!!,".: the.auggatigns in the first informatio.) repott ano ol.ner materials, if any, accompanying the :tR do i!j^^!:::!g*, a cosnizibte offence', juii,iiryi, g un tnvesugatrcn by potice officers under Seciion iSigl of the Code except under an order of a Magistrat= within the purview of Seclron 155(2) of the Code." (iii) Where the uncontrovefted altegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence"cottectei"i's tpport of--the same do not drsc/ose tne comiissior- ir ,ny offence and make out a case against the dccused - -" !v) Whe.r9 the allegations in the FtR do not consl tute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non_ io,o) ,r"61" off.9nce., no investigation is permifted iy i piiJr' ,ni"e, without an order of a Magisitrate ," "oitiiptiti,!'under Secfion 155(2) of the Code. (:l Whep the attegations made in the FtR or cot ptaint are so absurd and inherentty improbabte on lhe t i srs of whicl 1o prudent person can ever reach r just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proci eding against the accused. !! rY!:^:l:r,e is ay 9rp.uj" tesat bar ensrafteo , t any or tne provtstons of the Code or the Act con: >rned (,y.:!::,yhi"h a clminat proceedins is instiuiiJl',1 tne tnstttutton and continuance of tti proceedings t nd/or where there rs a specrfrc provision in the Code or Act concemed, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggieved pady. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestty attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to pivate and personal grudge."

16. The above said settled principle of law was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. \ 17. ln the present case on hand, as discussed above, the entire charge sheet except stating that the petitioners-accused Nos.'l to 9 are talking with some people, it remained silent with regard to the key aspects such as in what manner the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to g have influenced the voters. Moreover, the statements of the alleged eye witnesses are of no use as they do not disclose any incriminating material like as in what mode and manner the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 tried to influence the voters. lt is important to note that no voter was examined by the lnvestigating officer to asce(ain as to what was uttered to him or influencing him to cast his vote to a pa(icular party, this lacuna in the investigation is fatal to the case of the prosecution. ln the absence of any cogent and independent material from the prosecution, subjecting the petitioners-accused . Nos.1 to 9 to the rigour of trial amounts to sheer abuse of process of law. Thus, continuation of proceedings in c.c. No.991 of 2024 pending on the file of Vlll Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

18. Accordingry, the present criminar petition is allowr: I and the pro@edings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to g in c.c.No.9 91 ( f 2024 pending on the file of learned Vllr Additionar chief Metropolitan Magistr; te at Hyderabad are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, i1 any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed. SD/- AHI1 ED ABDULLA KHAN AS.( ISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Vlll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at li lderabad 2. The Station House Officer,police Station Bhavani Nagar Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRI M A MUJEEB Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CC to SRt. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OrJ [] 5. Two CD Copies I AG/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1 I 10812025 .i r1:: i; I ,:, .\\ 'i _'\ 19 Dir 2U[ .: ,ii ..,,, ..t.y' ti..' ORDER CRLP.No.14779 of 2O24 CRLP IS ALLOWED o '6 +r