T. V. Rama Krishna Raju vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 528 Tel

            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5930 OF 2020

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.

No.1407 of 2020, on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, Sangareddy. The petitioner herein is accused in the

said case. The offence alleged against him is under Section - 188 of

IPC.

2. Heard Mr. K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

3. The allegations against the petitioner in S.T.C. No.1407 of

2020 are as follows:

(a) The Government has issued instructions vide Memo

No.42331/JA(A)/2010, dated 09.09.2010 to the District

Collector, Medak District at Sangareedy to issue necessary

instructions to the concerned not to register any lands in

Dharma Sagar Billa Dhakala Lands and to take steps for

protection of said lands;

(b) Pursuant to the same, the District Collector, Medak District

at Sangareddy vide proceedings Lr.No.E1/7040/2007,

dated 17.09.2010, instructed the Revenue Divisional KL,J Crl.P. No.5930 of 2020

Officer, Sangareddy, Tahsildar, Sangareddy and the

District Registrar no to entertain any registrations in Billa

Dhakala Dharma Sagar lands of Sangreddy Mandal;

(c) The said proceedings were served on the District Registrar

Office, Sangareddy and the same was entered in Inward

Register vide entry No.1218 on 30.09.2010;

(d) The petitioner herein being the District Registrar,

Sangareddy in the year 2010 suppressing the said

proceedings dated 17.09.2010 issued by the District

Collector, entertained registrations including document

No.19847 of 2013, dated 08.11.2013 in the said Billa

Dhakala lands, Dharma Sagar causing huge loss to the

Government and Public; and

(e) Thus, the petitioner committed the offence under Section -

188 of IPC.

4. Basing on the complaint lodged by LW.1 - Tahsildar, Kandi

Mandal on 31.05.2017, the Station House Officer, Sangareddy Police

Station (Rural), has registered a case in Crime No.133 of 2017 against

the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections - 419, 420, 467,

468, 471, 409 and 120B of IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act

and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the police

filed charge sheet for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC against KL,J Crl.P. No.5930 of 2020

the petitioner herein and the same was taken on file vide S.T.C.

No.1407 of 2020 against the petitioner herein for the said offence.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on

the unreported judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep.

by Public Prosecutor1, would submit that the petitioner did not

commit any offence and the present proceedings in S.T.C.No1407 of

2020 are liable to be quashed in view of the principle laid down in the

said judgment.

6. In the said judgment while dealing with the offences under

Sections 188 and 283 of IPC, it was 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 specified 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 Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, dated 17.09.2009 KL,J Crl.P. No.5930 of 2020

In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 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 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 any reasonable basis and 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 unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety KL,J Crl.P. No.5930 of 2020

have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition."

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed

reliance on another unreported judgment of High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of

Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West

Godavari District2, wherein by relying various judgments including

N.T. Rama Rao1, and also guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, more particularly, guideline No.6,

which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of

the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a

criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance 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 the party, it was held that the proceedings in the said C.C.

No.13 of 2016 were quashed by exercising power under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. It was also further 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.

. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, dated 26.10.2016 KL,J Crl.P. No.5930 of 2020

8. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncements,

coming to the case on hand, the only allegation against the petitioner

herein is that he has entertained the document for registration in

respect of the lands in Billa Dakala Dharma Sagar despite the

instructions given by the Government as well as the District Collector

not to accept any documents in respect of the lands in the aforesaid

area and, thus, the petitioner herein has committed an offence under

Section 188 of IPC. In the present case, the complaint was filed by

the Tahsildar, Kandi Mandal, and the charge sheet is filed by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Sangareddy (Rural) and, therefore, the

complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of

Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. Thus, applying the principle laid down

in the above said two judgments, the proceedings in S.T.C. No.1407

of 2020 are liable to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section

482 of Cr.P.C.

9. Accordingly, the present Criminal petition is allowed and

proceedings in S.T.C. No.1407 of 2020, on the file of learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, are hereby

quashed against the petitioner - accused.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 24th February, 2021 Mgr