The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings agatnst the petitioner in C.C.No.'1 325 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial, for the offences Punishable U/s.188, 285, 353 of IPC and sec-51(B) of Disaster Management Act of 2005. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated rn the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitlon, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the petitioner including appearance of the Petitioneri Accused No. 01, herein in C.C.No.1325 ot 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial. This Petrtion coming on for hearing, upon perusing tlt€r l\4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argLrrlents of Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed Advocate for the Petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on beha{f of the Respondent No 1 & llone appeared for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following Order:- 'ir' THE IION'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14601 ot 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 1 rn C C. No 1 325 of 2021 , on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 1BB, 353 and 285 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 as well as Sri Jithender Rao Vderamalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1-State.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 28.05.2021 at 11:30 hours, when the complarnant, who is a Pro Sub-lnspector of Police, Jagtial Rural Police Station, along with other police personnel, were performing lock down duties and stopping unnecessarily moving vehicles in lock down time, at that time, the petitioner/accused No.1 came there by riding his white Honda Activa without number plate and disobeyd the orders promulgated by the Government of 2 E TD,] Cri P No 14601 2025 TelanganarviiCe G.O.Ms.No 102, dated 11.05.2021 and knowlngly violated the quarantine rule issued agarnst spreading of Corcna virus disease under the Epidemic Drseases Act, 1 897 a nd also the Disaster Management Act, 2005 When the compl:rirrant stopped the accused and asked to show his vehrcle documents; and any pass to move in the lock down time, the accused did not r;l-ow any valid documents pei'taining to the said vehicle. When the cornplainant asked the accused to park the vehicle beside the rora J, the accused refused her words and started arguing with he;- n agjressron enraged on her by throwing his motorcycle on the road by using criminal force and tried to set ablaze to his motorc,rr;lr: by opening the petrol cap which would cause endanger to huma 1 life and also obstructed the complainant in performing her legitimlrt': dr-,ties. As such, the accused committed offences punishable r nder Sections 188, 353, 285 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Marrrgement Act 2005 and a case ln crime No.249 of 2021 was registr:reC against the petitioner and subsequently, the same was got numbered as C C.No.1325 of 2021 , on the file of the learned I Adcitonal Judicial Mag istrate of.,First Class, Jagtial District

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the petitioner rs innocent and had been falsely t/ 3 ETD,] Cd-P.No.14601 2025 implicated in the case. He further submits that Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of the offence under Section 1BB of lPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate ln the present case, the complaint was Iodged by the de facto complainant, who is not a competent person, the present FIR is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the offence under Section 3 of the Act shall be deemed to have been committed under Section 1BB of lPC. When Sectron 188 of IPC warrants filing of a prrvate complaint, the same restriction applies to Section 3 of the Act also Since the prime offence under Section 1BB of IPC is barred by Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.

5. ln support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy' , wherein, at paragraph No.B, it is held as follows " We agree 'r,t)lth tne view expressed by the learned Judge and haldthat ln cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Couri is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code , ..!t ' atR tggt sc t+tz }. ,,,.. 4 EIC,J crl:r N. 14601 2C25 of Crhninal Procedure and an offence for vrhich a complaint of a Court rs necessa4y under that sr.,b .secfion are cotnmitted it is not possible to split up anil hold rhat the prosecDtion of the accused for the ofte'tces not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code oi Crimrnd Procedure should be upheld. (Emphasls supp/ir,o)" Hence, he .prayed to quash the proceedinr;s agarnst the petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on rh: ot^er hand submitted that the petitioner herein had also been clrarged with the offences other than 188 of lPC. Hence, the learned lV,agisirate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offenc;e s agarnst the petitioner basing on the final report filed by the Poli,:,-' As such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizanc:e takerr by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one withc ut authority of Law. He further. submitted that the kuth or othe -wise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can only lre known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence prayed t ) dismiss the petition. 7 . For the sakeeof convenience, Section 'l 88 of lF C; and Section 195 of Cr.P.C are extracted hereunder t/ 5 ETO,] Crl.P.No 14601 2025 "Secfioh 188 of IPC:- Disobedience to order dulv promulqated bv public servant - Whoeve r, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public seNant lavvfully empoweJed to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstainlfuom a ceftain act, or to take certain order with certain property in hrs possession or under his management, drsobeys such direction. shall. if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lavvfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term whiih 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 fo 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." "Section., 195 of Cr.P.C:- Prosecution for contempt of lawful a'tlthority of public servants, for offences aqainst public iustice and for offences relatinq to 5 documents qiven in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, 5 ETD,] rr '.JD 14601 2025 (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, sucr offence, except on the complaint in writing of the pull tc se^vant concerned or of some other public servant to n'hlm he is administratively subofr inate... (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of th,: folloling sections of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 186C ) natrely. sections 193 to 196 (hoth inclusive), 199,200, :lcrs to 211 (both inclusive) and ?28, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any J'r':ceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or >trnishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 >f the said Code, when such offence is alleged to l" a're been committed rn respect of a document produced >r gtv:n in evrdence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any crimtnal conspiracy to commit, or a lempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence spec f eJ in sub- clause (i) or sub-claupe (ii)."

8. Having heard both 6ides and perused the mate'ial on record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioner fcr the offence under Section 1BB of .,lPC have been initiated b,asing on the complaint made by the {e;facto complainant, who is ;l Police Officer, but not on the basis of complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, as is required under Section 195(1 )(a) of Cr.P.C. 7 ETD,] crl-P.No 14501 2025 Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed, lnsofar as the other offences r.e., S,e-ctions 353 and 285 of IPC and Section 51(b) .t of the Disaster Management Act are concerned, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemareddy's case (supra), it is clear l that if the offences form part of the same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C , it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of the petitioner. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences agatnst the petitioner stands vitiated and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.

9. ln view of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No 1 in C C.No.1325 of 2027, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magiskate of First Chss, Jagtial Drstrict. are hereby quashed

10. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI SISTANT REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of Frrst Class, Jagital. 2. The Station House Ofiicer, Jagtial Town Police station' Jagtial District - -- r4E a:" in; I at Hyderabad [OUT] 3 Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the Strte of tne Telangana 4 One CC to Sri Shajk lvluhammed Abed, Advocate [OptJi]l 5. Two CD Copies V(]/PI} Y+, HIGH COURT DATED: 1111112025 ! , ORDER CRLP.No.14601 of 2025 -.:

1.- I f, t:;. I:, _-.-y' ALLOWING THE CRLP t,-d"A ft*,