Telangana High Court
P.Vishnuwardhan vs The State Of Telangana on 13 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2053 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by the
petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.324 of 2024 pending on the file of XXII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.11.2023, the accused
persons violated the Model Code of conduct of Elections by
protesting against the political party leader in the middle of the road
and caused inconvenience to the public. Hence, a case was
registered vide Crime No.231 of 2023 before the Market Police
Station, Hyderabad and after completion of investigation, a charge
sheet was filed vide C.C.No.324 of 2024 on the file of the XXII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 188, 290, 341 read with
149 of the IPC and Section 21/76 of the CPA.
3. Heard Sri. Nagula Srinivas Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri. Jitender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the record.
SKS,J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contents
of charge sheet and statements of witnesses lack the ingredients of
the aforesaid offences.
5. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section 188
of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by public
servant and it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the
same is extracted hereunder:
"188. 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 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.
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce
harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient
that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience
produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to
promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a
SKS,J
certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot.
A has committed the offence defined in this section."
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 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 unsustainability, the proceedings
in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this
Court by way of this Criminal Petition."
Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009
SKS,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 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, 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.
In view of the above, the petitioners are at liberty to avail the said
alternative remedy.
Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016
SKS,J
5. However, in view of the request made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the
petitioners to file a fresh petition before the appropriate Court.
Further, the appearance of the petitioners/respondent Nos.2 to 6 in
D.V.C.No.24 of 2024 pending on the file of Principal Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Jangaon, is dispensed with, except on the dates
whenever their presence is required by the trial Court, and they shall
be represented by their counsel on every date of hearing and in case
of default, this order gets vacated automatically.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K. SUJANA
Date: 13.02.2025
gms
