Dr. Nagam Janardhan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2324 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dr. Nagam Janardhan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 February, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.2414 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') to

quash the proceedings in STC No.14 of 2024 pending on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool, against the

petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard Mr. Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 - State.

3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2

in the aforesaid STC No.14 of 2024. The offence alleged against them

is under Section - 188 of IPC.

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the

petitioners herein are that on 26.11.2023 while respondent No.2 was

discharging his election duties as In-charge of Flying Squad Team-9,

the petitioners herein conducted canvassing near Ambedkar Chourasta

at Sripuram Village with 250 to 300 Members under BRS Party and so

also bike rally without any permission from Returning Officer or

KL,J

Police Department and thereby they have violated the Model Code of

Conduct. Thus, the petitioners committed the aforesaid offence.

5. Therefore, respondent No.2 gave a report to the Police,

Nagarkurnool Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime

No.455 of 2023 for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners herein

and took up investigation.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

examined respondent No.2 herein as LW.1 and LWs.2 to 4 as eye-

witnesses. The Investigating Officer also secured presence of LWs.5

and 6 as panch witnesses for scene of offence. After completion of

investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein

for the aforesaid offence and the same was taken on file as STC No.14

of 2024 by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool.

7. Mr. Enuganti Sudhanshu Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners, would contend that the petitioners are innocent of the

offence alleged against them. To attract an offence under Section -

188 of IPC, there must be an order promulgated by a public servant.

In the instant case, there is no such order. No independent witness

was examined by the Investigating Officer except examining the

KL,J

police officials. Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid STC

cannot go on against the petitioners herein and the same are liable to

be quashed against the petitioners.

8. Whereas, it is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that

the petitioners conducted bike rally and also canvassed with 250-300

members without obtaining prior permission and thereby they have

violated the Model Code of Conduct. There are also specific

allegations levelled against the petitioners. These are all triable issues

which this Court cannot consider in a petition under Section - 528 of

the BNSS as the same have to be considered after a full-fledged trial

only by the trial Court. Thus, he sought to dismiss the present

criminal petition.

9. In view of the above rival submissions, it is apt to note that

Section - 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly

promulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as under:

"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

KL,J

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 certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."

10. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of

A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor1 while dealing with the offences

. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009

KL,J

under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, 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

KL,J

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."

11. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra

Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari

District2 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao1

and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State

. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016

KL,J

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.

12. In Bhajan Lal3, the Apex Court cautioned that power of

quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and

that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint,

quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as

to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

KL,J

in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment

laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under

Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

KL,J

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of

decisions.

13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh4, the Apex Court referring to its earlier

judgments has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of

its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. has to quash the

proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme

caution.

14. As discussed above, in the present case, the Investigating

Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of

. AIR 2021 SC 931

KL,J

Cr.P.C. and, as such, the proceedings for the offence under Section -

188 of IPC are liable to be quashed against the petitioners herein. \

15. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and

the proceedings in STC No.14 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool, are hereby quashed against

the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1 and 2.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 19th February, 2025 Mgr