Nitin Joseph, vs The State Of Telangana,
2022 Latest Caselaw 3071 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.949 OF 2022

ORAL ORDER:

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

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

No.5242 of 2019 pending on the file of XXV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

      2. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.3 in the

said C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections -

336, 188 and 353 of IPC and Section - 184 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988.

      3. Heard Mr. Nimmaraboina Naveen, learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing

on behalf of respondents.

4. The allegations against the petitioner herein are that on

23.09.2019 accused No.1 was driving the Car bearing registration

No.TS 09 ET 8055 while accused No.2 was co-traveller, and the

petitioner herein is the owner-cum-driver of the Car bearing

registration No.TS 09 ET 1415 while accused Nos.4 and 5 were KL,J Crl.P. No.949 of 2022

travelling in the above said sports cars. All of them were traveling

in the above said sports cars at high speed on Outer Ring Road.

When the police tried to stop them, they did not stop and they

drove the said cars at high speed causing endanger to the human

being. When respondent No.2 herein and other staff stopped the

said cars, the petitioner herein and other accused argued with them

and did not co-operate in discharging their legitimate duties of

reporting the same to the police for half an hour. Thus, the

petitioner and other accused have committed the aforesaid

offences.

5. In view of the above, it is necessary to refer to the

decision rendered by the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad, wherein, while dealing with the offences under

Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of

A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor1 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

. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, dated 17.09.2009 KL,J Crl.P. No.949 of 2022

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. 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 KL,J Crl.P. No.949 of 2022

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

KL,J Crl.P. No.949 of 2022

6. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra

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

District2 relying on various judgments including the judgment in

N.T. Rama Rao1 and also guidelines of the 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, the High Court of Judicature at

Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh 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

. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, dated 26.10.2016

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 KL,J Crl.P. No.949 of 2022

V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section 195 (1) (a) of

Cr.P.C.

7. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncements,

coming to the case on hand, one of the offences alleged against the

petitioner herein is under Section - 188 of IPC, which deals with

disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Perusal

of the record would reveal that there is no mention as to which

order that was promulgated by the Police Officers and that the

petitioner herein had knowledge of the same and having

knowledge, he had disobeyed etc. In the absence of the same, it

cannot be said that the petitioner herein had committed the offence

under Section - 188 of the IPC. Further, while registering the

complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the police have not followed

the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 195 (1) (a) of the

Cr.P.C. Thus, applying the principle laid down in the above said

two judgments, the proceedings in the subject C.C. are liable to be

quashed in exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. in

respect of the offence under Section - 188 of IPC KL,J Crl.P. No.949 of 2022

8. As far as the offences under Sections - 336 and 353 of

IPC and Section 184 of the M.V. Act are concerned, as discussed

above, prima facie, there are specific allegations in the charge sheet

against the petitioner herein.

9. Section - 336 of IPC deals with an act endangering life or

personal safety of others, and as per which, whoever does any act

so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal

safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to three months, or with

fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with

both.

10. Section - 353 of IPC deals with assault or criminal force

to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, and as per

which, whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being

a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant,

or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his

duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or

attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his

duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment KL,J Crl.P. No.949 of 2022

of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or

with fine, or with both.

11. Section - 184 of the M.V. Act deals with driving

dangerously, and according to it, whoever drives a motor vehicle at

a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having

regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature,

condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the

amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might

reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for

the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to

six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees,

and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three

years of the commission of a previous similar offence with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with

fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.

12. In view of the above, prima facie, the contents of the

charge sheet constitute the said offences. The defences taken by the

petitioner cannot be considered in an application filed under

Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. The same have to be decided after KL,J Crl.P. No.949 of 2022

full-fledged trial only by the trial Court. This Court cannot

consider the same in a petition filed under Section - 482 of the

Cr.P.C. Thus, the proceedings for the said offences shall continue

before the Magistrate Court.

13. Accordingly, the present Criminal petition is allowed in

part and the proceedings in C.C. No.5242 of 2019 pending on the

file of XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, are

hereby quashed against the petitioner herein - accused No.3 for the

offence under Section - 188 of IPC only. However, the

proceedings in the said C.C. shall continue in so far as other

offences are concerned.

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

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 27th June, 2022 Mgr