Telangana High Court

Shaik Sajid Sajju vs The State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.1337 of 2025
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 9 and 11 to 13 to quash the

proceedings against them in C.C.No.1123 of 2021 on the file

of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

District, pertaining to Crime No.189 of 2018 of P.S. Jagtial

Town, registered for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 153-A, 186, 187, 120-B read with 109, 149 of Indian

Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

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 15.07.2018 lodged by the

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

that the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 to 13, who are

the office bearers of Popular Front of India, Jagtial, have

organized a meeting with the activists of PFI, hatched a plan

with criminal conspiracy to attack on SFI students as well as

Hindu Community by promoting enmity between regional

groups and likely to disturb the public tranquility etc. The

owner of the function hall abated the PFI activists to organize

the said meeting in the function hall and not cooperated to the

public servants. As per the instructions of superior officers,

inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.189 of 2018.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed,

cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as

C.C.No.1123 of 2021.

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.

is mandatory in nature, therefore, cognizance for offence under

Section 186 and 187 of the IPC cannot be taken based on

police report and cognizance can only be taken on the

complaint in writing as defined under section 2(d) of the Code.

Further the said section bars taking cognizance of the offence

under Section 186 and 187 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. Therefore,

the FIR registered on the complaint made by the de facto

complainant, who is a Police Officer, is not maintainable and

the same is liable to be quashed.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for

petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy1, 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.

AIR 1981 SC 1417

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

submitted that the petitioners have also been charged with the

offences other than 186 and 187 of IPC. Hence, the learned

Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid

offences against the petitioners, 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 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 186, 187 of IPC

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

186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

187. Whoever, being bound by law to render or furnish assistance to any public servant in the execution of his public duty, intentionally omits to give such assistance, shall 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

assistance be demanded of him by a public servant legally competent to make such demand for the purposes of executing any process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice, or of preventing the commission of an offence, or suppressing a riot, or affray, or of apprehending a person charged with or guilty of an offence, or of having escaped from lawful custody, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred 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).

8. Having heard both sides and perused the material on

record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioners

for the offences under Section 186 and 187 of IPC have been

initiated, basing on the complaint made by the de facto

complainant, who is a Police Officer, but not on the basis of

complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, as is

required under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the

proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under

Section 186 and 187 of IPC are liable to be quashed. Insofar

as other offences i.e., 143, 153-A 120-B read with 109, 149 of

Indian Penal Code are concerned, as per the judgment of