The High Court · 2025

2. Kondra Srinivas, S/o Rajaiah, Aged about 33 years, Occ. VRO, R/o. VRO Tippannapet Viilage, Vid'ya nag ai, M ob r re 9a 4b 527 s67 . Ja girai,' .Jagiia t' oistrrct. ...Respondents/Defacto complainant Petition under section 482 of cr.p c R/w 528 of B.N.S.s, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Fetition, the^High court may be preased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in c-c.No.1199 0f 2020 0n the fite of the r RaditionaiLDdL FC Magistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District, for the offences punishabre U/s. 143, 1s6, 355, 506 r/w 34 of lPC. 1/ 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 including appearance of the petitioners herein in c.c.No.1 199 ot 2020 on the file of the I Additional JDCL FC i\i,lagistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District, for the offences punishable U/s, 143. 186 353, SOO rl* 34 of lPC. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri shaik Muhammed Abed, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Sri Jithender 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 I ; : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.15984 of 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners/accused Nos.l to 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.ll99 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 186, 353, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (lor short 'lPC').

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veerarnalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing [ol the [" respondent- State and perused the record.

3. The brieffacts ofthe case are: Upon the search warrant issucd bl the tl Additbnal Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Jagtial lbr chcating the Court by impersonating against Popular Front ol'lndia party olfice premises, LW'sl to 6, who are \"RO's arrd police personnel went to the said prcrnises to e\ccLltc thc scarch 2 warrant on l5.l l.20l8 at about 13.30 hrs and basing on the complaint rodged by the 2nd respondent_viilage Revenue Officer, Tippannapet village, Jagtial District, the petitioners/accused Nos.r to 6, who are the office bearers of Popular Front of India party, Jagtial, have assembled at Popular Front of India office, Gunj Chowrasta_Jagtial, they assaulted and obstructed the legitimate duties of the complainant and another as well as police persons. Hence a case in Crime No.30g of 20lg is registered for the offences under secrions 143, lg6, 353, 506 read with 34 oflndian penal Code which rvas taken on file by I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial, vide C.C.No.l 199 of 2020. 4. Learned counser appearing for petitioners submitted that the incident occurred on l5.ll.20lg between 13.00 to 14.30 hours but it u,as submitted before the concernecl Court on 18.11.2021 ar 1.00 pm by Jagtial police with unexplained delay, rvhich clearly shows the malafide intention of the respondenl ro book false case against the petitioners herein. It is firrther subrnitted that entire investigation done by the respondent ltolice upon the complaint made by the def,ackr 3 complainant who is a rev€nue officer, and by colluding with them implicated the petitioners herein with pre-determined objective and there is a bar under Section 195(aXi) of Cr'P'C' to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC. Therefore, the FIR registered on the complaint made by the de facto complainant, who is a Village Revenue Officer' is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed'

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have committed the offences alteged against them. Section 186 of IPC is a cognizable offence and therefore, it is the duty of the Police to register a case. Though there is a bar under Section 195(aXi) of-C-r.P'C' to take cognizance for the offence under Section 186 of IPC' it does not mean that the Police cannot register FIR and investigate the case. He further submiued that the trutl'l or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners shatt onty be known after conducting invcstigation and lull-tledged trial, and hence, prayed to dismiss thc pclitiorl' l i I I 4

6. For the sake of convenience, Section lg6 of IpC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder. I86. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge ol his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonrnent of either description for a tenn which may extend to three months, or with fine rvhich rnay extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authoritv of public servants. lor oflences against public.lustice and lor offences relating to documents given in evidence. ( I ) No Courls shall take cognizance_ (a) (i) olany offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian penal Code (45 of 1860). or (ii)ol any abetment ot, attempt to commit, such olfcncc. or (iii) ol anl crirninal conspiracy to commit, such ollcnce. except on the complaint in writing of the public scrl,ant concerned or of some other public scrvarrl to whom he is adrninistratively subordinate...,. 7. Furrher, it is significanr to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprenre Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy r, wherein it is held as under: " We agree rvith the view expressed by the leamed .lLrthc and hold that in cascs where in the course of the sarrc transaction an oflence for *trich no complaint by a ( ourr is necessarl.. under Section 195(l) (b) ofthe Code of ( rirninal l)rocedurc and an offence for which a complaint ol a CoLrrI is rrecessarv under that sub_section, are conrnrirtedf ir is nQr ptissiblc to split up and hold that the ' .tlR t0111 51' 11 17 5 prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section lgs(lxb) of ttre Code of Criminal Pmcedure should be upheld". (Emphasis suppl.ied) I I

8. It is relevanr here ro extract Section 195(l)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is as under- (bXi)oi any offence punishable under any of the lollowing sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199,200,205 to 2l I (both inclusive) and 228, when such ollence 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 471, section 475 or section Ll76 ol the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have becn committed in respect ol a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. or (iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to cornmit, or the abetment of, any oft'ence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii).

9. In thc instant case, a perusal ofthe charge sheet discloses ( that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the oflencc punishable under Section 186 of IPC including other penal provisions i.e., 143, 353 and 506 of IPC. As per the judgment ol'the lJon'blc Supreme Court in Hemareddy (supra) ir IS clcar that ilthe oIfences formed part of the same transaction of the ot-tences contenrplated under Section 195(l) (b) olCr.p.C.. 6 it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution ofaccused for the other offences. In view of the abo'e, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences stands vitiated. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.

10. [n view of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos' I to 6 irr respecr of FIR No. r I 99 of 2020 of I Additionar Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S. PRASAD GISTRAR ASSISTA SE OFFIC ER/ To, 1 2

4. 5. DL/gh The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagtial District. The Station House Officer, Jagtial Town Police Station, Jagtial District. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to SRI SHAIK MUHAMMED ABED, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies &2 HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.15984 ot 2024 I +) u- -\ $E 5 T/i I Pz a -b 4- 1[ rlB z[fr t -'i-:jl)^1C$ c.0 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 6 V I l i j, t I i I I I