In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.o., P.S. Eluru Rural' West Godavari Dlst

Petition under Section 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 proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.1 1 to 19 in c.c.No.3B9 of 2019, on the file of lAdditional Junior civir Judge -cum- First Additional Judicial lrilagistrate of First class at Gadwal. Jogulamba Gadwal District. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., 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.3g9 of 201g,on the file of I Additional Junior crvil Judge -cum- First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District including the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 1 to 1g. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri pooJARl SRILEKHA, Advocate for the petitioners and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No. 'l None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.15536 OF 2o24 ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms.Srilekha Poojari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr.S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No' 1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is Iiled under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.3B9 of 2OI9 pending on the lile of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.11 to 19 in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 188 and 29O of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC').

4. The allegations levelled in the charge sheet are that, respondent No.2 being A.E.E. of Irrigation Department was appointed as Model Code of Conduct, Mandal Nodal Officer, Ghattu Mandal, by the District Election Officer and 2 District Collector in respect of Gadn al Assembly Constituency. He (LW. 1) lodged a report dated O2.12.2Ol8 with the Station House Officer, Ghattu Police Station, against the petitioners herein stating that they conducted public meeting ln villages l.e Boyaldgudam, Induvasi, Anthampally, Baligera, Macherla and Yellamdoddi of Gattu Mandal without taking any prior permission from the competent authority for election campaigning on behalf of MLA contested caldidate of Congress Party in General Assembly Elections, 2O 18 and conducted meeting on

01.12.2OI8 between 12.00 to 16.00 hours, ancl thereby they have violated model code of conduct. Thus, the petitioners were committed the aforesaid offences

5. Basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.157 of 2018 was registered by Ghattu Police Station against the petitioners and other accused for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation.

6. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid 3 offences and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.389 of 2Ol9 by learned I Additional Judicia-l Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court vide order dated 07.03'2024 in CrI.P.No.2574 of 2024 quashed the proceedings in very same C.C. against accused Nos.1 to 7

8. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 of the order dated 07.03'2024 in Crl.P.No.2574 of 2024:

6. In N.T. Rama Rao v' The State of A.P., rep' by Public Prosecutorr while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge held as under: "5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specilied place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant r. Criminal Petition No.5323 of2009, decided on 17 09 2009 4 Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is grarted under Section 3O of the Police nct, i861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code oI Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by thc public scrvant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizalce of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the prescnt case, the charge sheet was hled by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to gr:u'rt permission for the public meeting and thcrefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Crimina.l Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have beerr committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence undcr Section 188 of Indian Penal Code ald is not an independent of the same. Even othenvise, thc conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traflic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any pcrson. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Scction 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when 5 the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an- offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have aly reasonable basis ald in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its un- sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fai1, though the 1"t accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition."

7. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.o., P.S. Eluru Rural' West Godavari Dlstrictz relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Raol and the guidelines Iaid 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 al express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or 2- Criminal Pctition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26' 10 2016 r. (tqgz) supp. I scc 335 6 the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continua:tct: 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 Lhe 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. It furthcr 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 Cr.P.C.

8. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncements, coming to the case on hald, the only allegation against the petitioners herein is that thcy participated in election campaigning and conducted meeting without prior permission from competent authority on O1.72.2078 between 120O to 16OO hours, and thercby they violated the Election Model Code of Conduct during the Election Code, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. But, there is no mention in the charge sheet as to which orders that I I 7 were disobeyed by the petitioners. In the present case, the complaint was filed by LW. 1, AEE of Irrigation Department of Jogulamba - Gadwal District ald the charge sheet is hled by the Sub-lnspector of Police, Ghattu Police Station and, therefore, the charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section - 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C. Section - 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. It says whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his 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, artnoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with hne which may extend to two hundred mpees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safet5r, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shal1 be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which 8 (.) may extcnd to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand mpees, or with both. Whercas, Section - 29O of IPC dea-ls with punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for, ald as per u,hicl.r whocver commits a public n-uisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Codc, shall be punished with fine which may extend to tu,o hundred mpees. The alleged public nuisance is consequence of violation of the orders. When the principal offence under Section - 188 of IPC itself cannot be taken cognizance by tl're Court, the consequent alleged public nuisancc punishable under Section - 290 of IpC cannot be maintarned. Further, the contents of the charge sheet are lacking the said ingredients. Thereforc, applying the principle laid down in the above said two judgments ald in view of the above said discussion, the proceedings in C.C.No.389 of 2Ol9 are liable to be quashed in exercise of powcrs under Secfion - 482 of Cr.P.C." As discussed supra, this Court vide order dated 07.O3.2024 in Crl.P.No.2574 of 2024 quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.l to 7 considering the aforesaid principle. I I I I l I I l l I 9

9. In the light of the same, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.389 of 2Ol9 pending on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Gadwal, are hereby quashqd against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.11 to 19' As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition sha1l stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. TIRUMA E ASSISTANT DEVI 'TRAR .,/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- First Additional it ca-owat' Josulamba Gadwal Judicial Magistrate "iF;t"t"Ci";; district The Station House Officer, Ghattu Police Station' Jogulamba Gadwal District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRl. POOJARI SRILEKHA' Advocate [OPUC] Two CD CoPies 2 a 4 q HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 ( ORDER CRLP.No.15536 of 2024 ,{ a \'- -, h r-- l) i4 / ( 'A '\ I I A,r: ?ali ii .1 n/,TCHE ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION //z zZt/zr