Telangana High Court
Shiva Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15536 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Ms.Srilekha Poojari, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Dr.S.Prashanth, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to
quash the proceedings in C.C. No.389 of 2019 pending on
the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I
Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gadwal,
Jogulamba Gadwal District.
3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused
Nos.11 to 19 in the said case. The offences alleged against
them are under Sections 188 and 290 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
4. 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 in respect of Gadwal Assembly
Constituency. 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., 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 12.00 to 16.00 hours, and thereby
they have violated model code of conduct. Thus, the
petitioners were committed the aforesaid offences.
5. 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 and other accused for
the aforesaid offences and took up investigation.
6. 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 I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Gadwal.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 in Crl.P.No.2574 of
2024 quashed the proceedings in very same C.C. against
accused Nos.1 to 7.
8. In the light of the same, it is relevant to note
paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 of the order dated 07.03.2024 in
Crl.P.No.2574 of 2024:
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:
"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
. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009
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 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 un-
sustainability, 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 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
. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016
. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
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.
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, annoyance or
injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to
any person lawfully employed, be punished with
simple imprisonment 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
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."
As discussed supra, this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024
in Crl.P.No.2574 of 2024 quashed the proceedings against
accused Nos.1 to 7 considering the aforesaid principle.
9. In the light of the same, the present Criminal Petition
is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.389 of 2019
pending on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, at Gadwal, are hereby quashed against the
petitioners herein - accused Nos.11 to 19.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
5th February, 2025
ynk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15536 OF 2024
5th February, 2025
ynk
