Telangana High Court
Syed Shaker vs The State Of Telangana on 18 February, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2275 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1
to quash the proceedings against him in S.C.No.155 of 2023 on
the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 188, 272,
273, 269 and 328 r/w. 34 of IPC and 20(2) of the Cigarettes and
Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and
Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and
Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short 'COTP Act').
2. Heard Sri Y.Bala Murali, learned counsel for the petitioner-
accused No.1 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the
petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him, he has
been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that
Section 195(1)(a)(1) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court from taking
cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC,
unless there is a written complaint by public servant concerned
for contempt/violation of his lawful orders. Hence, he prayed to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner has 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
petitioner, 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
of Law. He further submitted that the truth or otherwise of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner can only be known after
conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the
petition.
5. For the sake of convenience, Section 188 of IPC and
Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are 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 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. 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-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172
to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such
offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such
offence, except on the complaint in writing of the
public servant concerned or of some other public
servant to whom he is administratively subordinate...
(b)(i)of any offence punishable under any of the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive),
199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when
such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or
in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii)of any offence described in section 463, or
punishable under section 471, section 475 or section
476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged
to have been committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any
Court, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to
commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in
sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii).
6. Having heard both sides and perused the material on
record, it is evident that Section 195(1)(a)(1) of Cr.P.C. bars the
Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under
Section 188 of IPC, unless there is a written complaint by public
servant concerned for contempt/violation of his lawful orders. In
the present case, basing on the complaint lodged by the 2nd
respondent-de facto complainant, who is not a competent person,
present crime was registered and cognizance was taken by the
learned Magistrate. Hence, the proceedings against the
petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC are liable to be
quashed.
7. In the judgment of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy 1, at
paragraph No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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)
8. Insofar as other offences i.e., Sections 272, 273, 269 and
328 r/w. 34 of IPC and 20(2) of the COTP Act, as per the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hemareddy's case
(supra), it is clear that if the offences formed part of the same
transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195 of
Cr.P.C., it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of
the petitioner. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of
the aforesaid offences against the petitioner stands vitiated and
AIR 1981 SC 1417
the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner
amounts to abuse of process of law.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in S.C.No.155 of
2023 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at
Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
___________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 18-FEB-2025
lk
