Telangana High Court
B.V. Naik Alias Bhagavantraya Naik vs The State Of Telangana on 7 March, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2574 OF 2024
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.389 of 2019 pending on the file of Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, at Gadwal.
2. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 7
in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under
Sections - 188 and 290 of IPC.
2. Heard Mr. P. Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
3. The allegations levelled in the charge sheet are that,
respondent No.2 being A.E.E. of Irrigation Department was
appointed as Model Code of Conduct, Mandal Nodal Officer,
Ghattu Mandal by the District Election Officer and District
Collector. He (LW.1) lodged a report dated 02.12.2018 with the
Station House Officer, Ghattu Police Station against the petitioners
herein stating that they conducted public meeting in villages i.e.,
KL,J
Boyalagudam, Induvasi, Anthampally, Baligera, Macherla and
Yellamdoddi of Gattu Mandal without taking any prior permission
from the competent authority for election campaigning on behalf of
MLA contested candidate of Congress Party in General Assembly
Elections, 2018 and conducted meeting on 01.12.2018 between
1200 to 1600 hours, and thereby they have violated model code of
conduct. Thus, the petitioners were committed the aforesaid
offences.
4. Basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a
case in Crime No.157 of 2018 was registered by Ghattu Police
Station against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and took
up investigation.
5. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge
sheet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences and
the same was taken on file as C.C. No.389 of 2019 by learned
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal.
6. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public
Prosecutor 1 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188
and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge held as under:
. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009
KL,J
"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. 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
KL,J
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 have to fail, though the 1st accused
alone approached this Court by way of this
Criminal Petition."
KL,J
7. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari
District 2 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao1
and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3, 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, a learned Single
Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said
C.C. by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It 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, decided on 26.10.2016
. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
KL,J
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 participated in election campaigning
and conducted meeting without prior permission from competent
authority on 01.12.2018 between 1200 to 1600 hours, and thereby
they violated the Election Model Code of Conduct during the
Election Code, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. But,
there is no mention in the charge sheet as to which orders that were
disobeyed by the petitioners. In the present case, the complaint
was filed by LW.1, AEE of Irrigation Department of Jogulamba -
Gadwal District and the charge sheet is filed by the Sub-Inspector
of Police, Ghattu Police Station and, therefore, the charge sheet is
in violation of the mandatory provision of Section - 195 (1) (a) of
Cr.P.C. Section - 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order
duly promulgated by public servant. It says whoever, knowing
that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully
empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from
a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his
possession or under his management, disobeys such direction,
shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction,
KL,J
annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to
any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple impris-
onment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine
which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such
disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health
or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both. Whereas, Section - 290 of IPC
deals with punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise
provided for, and as per which whoever commits a public nuisance
in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be
punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. The
alleged public nuisance is consequence of violation of the orders.
When the principal offence under Section - 188 of IPC itself cannot
be taken cognizance by the Court, the consequent alleged public
nuisance punishable under Section - 290 of IPC cannot be
maintained. Further, the contents of the charge sheet are lacking
the said ingredients. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in
the above said two judgments and in view of the above said
KL,J
discussion, the proceedings in C.C.No.389 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.389 of 2019 pending on the file of
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Gadwal, are hereby
quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 to 7 only.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
7th March, 2024
Mgr
