Further, the Honourable Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy', in paragraph No

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE: /l EADA cRIMINAL PETITION No.14283 OF 202t ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-ir :cused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C (.No.2998 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil J .rdge-cum-V Additional lVletropolitan fi/lagistrate, t\4edchal-Malkajrl ri District at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences under Sect,< ns 223 and 292 of BNS.

2. Heard Sri Arpith Joy Ramesh, learned corr rsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learn:J Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent

3. The case of prosecution is that the petitioner t as used DJ music band without any permission and caused nr> se pollution and disturbance in the locality

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit,r d that the petitioner is the Principal of St. Pious X Degree ancl PG College for Women and that she has not committed any su,: r offence to attract Sections 223 and 292 of BNS. He further st >mitted that the petitioner has advised the concerned participant o the college w \ 2 I]TD T Crt.P.No.14283 of2025 to obtain necessary permission for using the band and that she has also applied for permission on 16.12.2024 and the event was to be held on 17.12.2024. On 16.12.2024 at 05:00 PM, the said participant along with a lady faculty and attender of the college went to the police station to obtain permission and waited for the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), but the SHO did not turn up till late in the night, hence the ladies returned and the attender of the college waited at the police station. Thereafter, the attender has given the application to the SHO, but the SHO has not endorsed anything on the said application. The attender has not communicated to the petitioner herein that the C.l. has not endorsed on the application and that he has asked the college management to meet him. The college management was under the bona flde impression that the application seeking permission was already submitted to the police. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there is no criminal intention on the part of the petitioner in not obliging the Rules and that the petitioner herein has not committed any such alleged offences. He further submitted that to initiate proceedings under Section 223 BNS, sanction under Section 215 BNSS has to be obtained. ln the absence of the same, the proceedings against the petitioner need -1 El'I],J Crl '.No.14283 of2025 to be quashed. He, therefore, prayed to quash the pr tceedings in J the present C.C. against the petitioner herein.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor suk mitted that admittedly the petitioner had not taken any permis{i rn for using the DJ music band. He further submitted that the perm ission should be obtained from the Commissioner of Police, which is not done in the present case. Therefore, prima facie <:; rse is made out against the petitioner herein. The petitioner being the head of the institution is liable to be prosecuted. He, therefc,r :, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. Perused the record.

7. The case of the prosecution is that the St. Picr s X Degree and PG College for Women, Snehapuri Colony, Nar haram, has organized a Fest, during which they have used the t), music with loud speakers, which created noise pollution in the ;urrounding areas and disturbed the peace in the locality. The : >ntention of the petitioner's counsel is that the college managenl, rnt is under the impression that they have submitted the applir: rtion to the police. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitle I that there are certain Rules for the sound system to be use< within the 4 ETD,J Crl.P.No.l428l o12025 permissible limits and for using any sound system, permission has to be obtained from the concerned Commissioner of Police as per the Hyderabad City Loud Speakers (Regulation of Use and Licensing) Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Rules'). Rule 2('l ) of the said Rules reads as follows: "2.(1) No person shall install, use or operate, or permit the installation, use or operation of a loudspeaker in any public place or place of public entertainment at any time without obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of Police (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing authority) or from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order or the Divisional Assistant Commissioners of Police, duly authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police." Thus, necessarily permission has to be obtained from the Commissioner of Police for using any sound system' ln the present case, the said permission is not obtained by the institution, to which the petitioner herein is the Principal' B. The present complaint is filed alleging offences under Sections 223 and 292 BNS. When the offence under Section 223 BNS is alleged, the procedure under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS has to be mandatorily followed. For the sake of reference, Section 215(1Xa) BNSS is extracted hereunder: 5 ETD,J (i .l .No.1.1283 of 2025 "215. Prosecution for contempt of lawful auth )rity of public servants, for offences against public just ce and for offences relating to documents given in evidr: tce.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance - (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 20(. to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the ti aratiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023; ot (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such rffence; (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offenc€ except on the complaint in writing of the public ;ervant concerned or of some other public servant to whc r I he is administratively subordinate or of some other public ;ervant who is authorised by the concerned public servant srt to do;

9. A bare perusal of the above provision revei ls that the complaint has to be lodged only by the public ser rant in the competent Court and only then, the Court can take c: ;nizance of the same. ln the present case, the complaint is filec before the SHO by the police constable. Therefore, it lacks the ingredients of a complaint under Section 215 BNSS. The word ': rmplaint'is defined under Section 2(1)(h) of BNSS, which read{; as follows: '2. Definitions - (1) ln this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise 6 ETD.J Cd.P.No.142El of2025 requrres, - (a) to (g) xxx (h) "Complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report." Therefore, to attract the offence under Section 223 oI BNS, a complaint needs to be lodged by the public servant or by the person authorized by the public servant before the competent Court and only then, the Court can take cognizance. ln the present case, complaint is lodged by the police constable before the SHO, therefore, no Court can take cognizance of the said offence.

10. Further, the Honourable Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy', in paragraph No.8, held thus: '8. 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 no complaint by a court is necessary under s. 195(1Xb) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a court is necessary under that sub-section, are ' aIR l98l sc talT 7 E'TD,J CrL t No.I4283 of 2025 committed, it is not possible to split up and hold lt at the prosecution of the accused for the offencr;; not mentioned in s. 1 95(1)(b) of the Code of () minal Procedure should be upheld." Ihus, the other offence i.e., 292 BNS also canr( t be taken cognizance of against the petitioner. Therefore, ccr tinuation of proceedings against the petitioner herein would be r n abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings in the prest nt C.C are liable to be quashed against the petitioner herein

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowe I and the proceedings in C.C.No.2998 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional l4etropolitan Magistrate, tt/edchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall s'i nd closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- T I RINIVASAREDDY ASSIS| ANT REGISTRAR i__;+ S ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The I Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - V Additiona Metropolitan Ivlagistrate, Ir/edchal- Malkajgiri District, at L.B. Naga 2- The Station House Officer, Nacharam Police Station, Rach rkonda 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sti e of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. ARPITH JOY RAIVIESH, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies RC/?SL HIGH COURT DATED: 2411112025 I ORDER CRLP.No.14283 of 2025 -a c ( 'iil8 Sr ,\ I 15 tir ?ln i t.,:.. -\. - ,;Ir^ ",-,,,:rr i .,../ Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Alk)wed.