The High Court · 2025

Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. B. Shankar Nayak, S/o Not Known, Aged about Note Known, Occ. Sub- lnspector of Police, Mobile No.7901 120552, P.S. Jagtial Town, Jagtial. ...Respondents/De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C rlw 528 of BNSS Act, 2023 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 in C.C.No.1607 ot 2O2O on the file of the I Additional JDCL FC Magistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District, for the offeices Punishable Uls. 188,271, 505(1) of IPC and Sec 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act 1897.

1.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that irr the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, thr-' High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners herein in C.C.No.1607 oI 2020 on the file of I Additional JD()L FC Magistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds *of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argurnents of Sri Shaik I\/uhammed Abed, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Jithenrier Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.16117 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners/accused Nos.l , 2, 4, 6 and 7 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1607 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District, perlaining to Crime No.400 of 2020 of P.S. Jagtial Town, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188,211and 505(1) of IPC and Section 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 fbr the respondent- State and perused the record

3. Basing on the complaint dated 04.08.2020 lodged by the 2nd respondent-the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagtial Police Station, that the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, who are the office bearers of Popular Front of India, Jagtial, have I ) 2 assembled at Collectorate, Jagtial, without maintaining social distance, violating the lockdown orders issued by the Health Department, Government of Telangana, a c ase in Crime No.400 of 2020 was registered against the pctitioners and others. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed,, cognizance was taken and the case was, numbered as C.C.No.1607 of 2020.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsel.r implicated in the case. He fufther submits that Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.p.C bars taking cognizance of the offence under S,ection 188 of IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public serwant concerned or of some other public servant tc, whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present citse, lockdown orders were issued by the Health Department, (iovernment of Telangana, therefore, the FIR registered on the complaint made by the de facto complainant, who is a Police Officer, is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He fufther submits that the offence under Section 3 of the AcL shall be deemed to have been committed under liection 188 of ) 4 3 IPC. 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 188 of IPC is barred by Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.

5. In support of his contention, leamed counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddyl, wherein, at paragraph No.8, it is held as follows: " We agree with the view expressed by the leamed Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an ofl'ence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(l) (b) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are commifted, it is not possible to split up and hold thar the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioncd in Section 195( I Xb) ol the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld". (Emphasis supplied) Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petltloners. ' eln rgEl sc t+tz 4 . .,-i. i- .

6. Learned Additional Public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have also bee, char.ged with the offences other [han 188 of IpC. Hencc, the learred Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid otfences against the petitioncrs, basing on the final report filed bv the police, as such, the ltroceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by the learncd Magistrate cannot be sirid to be one without authority ol Law. He further submittec that the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against .he petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fled1ged trial, and hence, he pral'ed to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sakc of convenience, Section lgg of IpC and Section 195 olCr.P.C. are extracted hereunder. 18ti. t)isobcdience to order du[,v. prontulg.ated b1, public servant - Whoever, knowing that, by rn order pronrulgated b1,a public selant larvfully ernPowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain fronr a ccftain act, or to take certain order with certain propcrl)/ in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disotedience causcs [o tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injurr. ,,r risk of obstruction, annoyance or irjrrry. lo any person lau,fully cmployed, be punisht:d with sirnplc imprisonrnent lor a term which may e:ttend to one tFonth or rvith fine which may extend to tu,o ?'/ 5 hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger [o 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.

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, lor olfences against public justice and lor olfences relating to documents given in evidence. ( I ) No Courts shall take cognizance- (a) (i) ofany offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 ol 1860), or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to cornmit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiraoy 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 ol the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (borh inclusive), 199,200,205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have 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 47 l, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such olfence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidcnce 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). 6 F-.

8. Having hcard both sides and perused tle material on record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Scction I88 of IPC have been initiated, basir.rg on the complaint made by the de factc complainant, who is a Police Officer, but not on the basis olcomplaint in wliting of the public servant concerned, AS is required under Section 195(l )(a) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners for thc offence under Section 188 of IPC arc liable to be quashed. Insofar as other offences i.e., 27 I and 505( l) of IPC and Section 3 of the Act ire concerned, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Suprenre Court in Hemareddy's casc (supra), it is clear that if the offences formed part of thc same transaction of the offences contcnrplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of the petitioners. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforr:said offences against the petitioners stands vitiated and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amcunts to abuse of process o1' Iarv / / 7

9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.l,2, 4,6 and 7 in C.C.No.l607 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of Firsr Class, Jagtial Disrrict, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. V HARI PRASAD, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. E TION OFFICER The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial The Station House Officer, Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTj One CC to Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 5 ADK HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 I I I I ORDER CRLP.No.16117 ot 2024 / /q t: \, :11{E Sf4 15: /z'^?" 11 tllf\n (.i ,\ t \ * r)g s p,l'i C.\ *gO ALLOWING THE CRLP ( //) /t t /