Mohammed Jio Ur Rahman vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1793 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mohammed Jio Ur Rahman vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

            HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.1546 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings

against them in Crime No.418 of 2020 of PS Jagtial Town at

Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under

Section 188 and Section 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005

(for short 'Act').

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for

petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State

and perused the record.

3. Basing on the complaint dated 15.08.2020 lodged by the

2nd respondent-the Inspector of Police, Jagtial Police Station, that

the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and others, who belonged to

PFI Party were spreading rumors that they are trained in Covid-19

rules, and they will perform last rites of those who died due to

Covide-19 disease and accused No.1 using his cell phone posting

pictures and messages to his contact groups. Thereby, the

accused Nos.1 and 2 disobeyed the Orders promulgated by the

Government of Telangana issued against spreading of corona

virus disease under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. A case in

Crime No.418 of 2020 was registered against the petitioners and

others.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the

petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the

case. He further submits that Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars

taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC,

except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned

or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively

subordinate. In the present case, the complaint was lodged by the

de facto complainant, who is not a competent person, the present

FIR is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He

further submits that the offence under Section 54 of the Act, shall

be deemed to have been committed under Section 188 of IPC.

When Section 188 of IPC warrants filing of a private complaint,

the same restriction applies to Section 54 of the Act also. Since

the prime offence under Section 188 of IPC is barred by Section

195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without

jurisdiction.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioners

relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of

Karnataka v. Hemareddy 1, wherein, at paragraph No.8, it is held

as follows:

" We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld".

(Emphasis supplied)

Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

submitted that the petitioners have also been charged with the

offences other than 188 of IPC. Hence, the learned Magistrate

has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the

petitioners, basing on the final report filed by the Police, as such,

the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by

the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one without authority

AIR 1981 SC 1417

of Law. He further submitted that the truth or otherwise of the

allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be known

after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss

the petition.

7. For the sake of convenience, Section 188 of IPC and

Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.

188 of IPC. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant -- 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 to tender 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.

195 of Cr.P.C. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance-