Panthangi Raj Bhoopal vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1624 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.1496 OF 2021

ORDER:

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

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C.

No.1549 of 2019 on the file of Junior Civil Judge - cum - XIV

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in the said case. The

offences alleged against them are under Sections - 188 and 341 of

IPC.

2. Heard Mr. P. Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite service of notice, none

appears on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. The allegations against the petitioners in the charge sheet is

that, on 09.04.2019 at about 11:45 hours, the petitioners herein being

the representatives of the Bharatiya Janatha Party have taken the Bike

Rally with BJP flags at Shamshabad main road without obtaining any

prior permission from the concerned department ad thereby violated

the model code of conduct and obstructed the common public on road.

The said incident had occurred within the jurisdiction of complainant -

Naib Tehsildar (LW.1).

KL,J Crl.P. No1496 of 2021

4. Basing on the complaint lodged by LW.1, a case in Crime

No.166 of 2019 was registered by RGI Airport Police Station against

the petitioners and took up the investigation.

5. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge

sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence and the same

was taken on file vide C.C. No.1407 of 2020 against the petitioner

herein for the said offence.

6. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public

Prosecutor1 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 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

. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009

KL,J Crl.P. No1496 of 2021

offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 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

KL,J Crl.P. No1496 of 2021

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 have to fail, though the 1st 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

District2, wherein by relying on various judgments including N.T.

Rama Rao1 and also the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, 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. 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

. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

KL,J Crl.P. No1496 of 2021

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 hand, the only allegation against the petitioners

herein is that they have conducted a bike rally with BJP flags without

obtaining prior permission, and thereby they have committed the

aforesaid offences. In the present case, the complaint was filed by

the Naib Tehsildar and the charge sheet is filed by the Sub-Inspector

of Police, RGI Airport Police Station and, therefore, the charge sheet

is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section - 195 (1) (a) of

Cr.P.C. Section - 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongful

restraint. Section 330 of IPC deals with wrongful restraint, as per

which, whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that

person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a

right to proceed is said wrongfully to restrain that person. The

contents of the charge sheet lacks the said ingredients or wrongful

restraint. Thus, applying the principle laid down in the above said two

judgments and in view of the above said discussion, the proceedings

in C.C. No.1549 of 2019 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

the proceedings in C.C. No.1549 of 2019 on the file of the Junior

Civil Judge - cum - XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

KL,J Crl.P. No1496 of 2021

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, are hereby quashed against the

petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3.

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

Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 14th June, 2021 Mgr