Kuruva Venkata Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8068 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.3094 of 2022

ORDER:

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2, 3

and 6 in C.C.No.1704 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool

district, for offences under Sections 188, 506 and 509 read

with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The complaint against the petitioners and other

accused in the charge sheet are as follows:

The defacto-complainant and the accused are

neighbours who are staying in opposite houses. The defacto-

complainant and their family members had requested the 1st

accused, during the Covid-19 lock down period, to move a car

kept in front of the road as the said vehicle was obstructing

other vehicles and that the said vehicle was in the way for the

hypo solution being sprayed in Corona affected areas for

stopping the spread of Corona Virus.

3. The accused, apparently are said to have abused

the defacto-complainant and other lady members of the

house in filthy language and moved very aggressively against

the defacto-complainant and other ladies of her house, due to

which a complaint was made to the Kurnool Thaluk (U) Police

Station. After investigation, a charge sheet has been filed.

4. The relevant portion of the charge sheet reads as

follows:

"But, he did not accept to remove his car from the road further he along with his family make galata accused and his sons are abusing the ladies in filthy language the complainant took photographs of the scene and sending them to higher officials of Kurnool Town. Further the accused making nuisance many times previously the complainant and others are making reports in concerned police stations. This is due to that there are existing ill feelings between the accused and complainants husband in petty issues."

5. Aggrieved by the filing of a charge sheet in this

matter, the petitioners who are accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 have

filed the present Criminal Petition for quashing the said

charge sheet.

6. Section 188 of IPC provides that disobedience of

an order duly promulgated by a public servant is an offence

which is punishable under law. However, Section 195 of CrPC

provides that a complaint under Section 188 of Indian Penal

Code can be filed only by way of a complaint in writing by the

public servant concerned or of some other public servant to

whom he is administratively sub-ordinate. In the present

case, neither there is a mention of any order passed by a

public servant which is said to have been violated nor the

complaint has been filed by any public servant. In the

circumstances, Prosecution under Section 188 of Indian

Penal Code would have to be quashed.

7. Under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code provides

for punishment for Criminal intimidation which is defined

under Section 503 in the following manner:

8. The ingredients of Section 503 require that there

should be a threat of injury to a present, his/her reputation

or property with the intention of causing alarm to that person

or to make that person do any act which is not legally bound

to do or omit doing such an act which is required by the

person. In the present case, the allegation is that the 1st

accused along with his sons had abused the defacto-

complainant and other ladies. There is no mention of the

petitioners herein in the said allegation. In such

circumstances, a case under Section 506 is not made out in

the charge sheet.

9. Section 509 of Indian Penal Code reads as

follows:

As seen from the contents of the charge sheet, the

allegation is that the 1st accused and his sons had abused the

defacto-complainant and other ladies in the house. As there

is no allegation against the petitioners herein, it would have

to be held that no case is made out against the petitioners

under Section 509 of Indian Penal Code also.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also

rely upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in

the case of (Hari Kishen Sharma v/s State & ors), reported

in 2018(4)JCC2107::MANU/DE/3502/2018 to contend that

unless the specific words and gestures are recorded in the

charge sheet, no case can be made out under Section 509 of

IPC.

11. As this Court has already noticed that there are

no specific allegations against the petitioners either in

relation to Section 506 or 509 of IPC, this petition is allowed

quashing C.C.No.1704 of 2021, in the Court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court) Kurnool,

against the petitioners only. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

28.10.2022 RKS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3094 of 2022

28.10.2022

RKS