Telangana High Court

Pagadala Kaliprasad vs The State Of Telanana on 11 July, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

       CRIMINAL PETITION No.6885 of 2025
ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned

Additinal Public Prosecutor for respondents.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528

of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (for short

'BNSS') seeking to quash the proceedings against the

petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.35 of 2025 pending on the file

of Excise Court, Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad

(transferred from Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate at Parkal).

3. Petitioner herein is A3 in the said C.C. The

offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under

Section 188 of IPC and Section 4 of the [Telangana]

Prevention of Disfigurement of Open Places and

Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable Posters and

Advertisements Act, 1997 (for short 'the Act'). On the KL,J Crl.P.No.6885 of 2025

complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, Police,

P.S.Parkal registered a case in Crime No.349 of 2023

on 24.11.2023 against the petitioner and other

accused. In the said compliant, the 2nd respondent has

specifically alleged that he is Divisional Panchayat

Officer, Hanamakonda and Model Code of Conduct In-

charge (104). On 24.11.2023, at about 10.30 a.m, he

went to the Pocharam village for the purpose of

inspection and noticed that BRS, Congress and BJP

wall posters pasted on government electric poles with

photos and symbols. The same is in violation of

Section 188 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act. The said

act is also in violation of Model Code of Conduct.

Therefore, he requested the SHO, PS, Parkal to take

action against the petitioner and other accused.

4. During the course of investigation, the

Investigating Officer recorded the statements of 2nd

respondent as L.W.1, Police Constable Mr.Pool Singh

(PC 8239) of PS Parkal, as L.W.2 and one photographer KL,J

by name Mr. K.Ajeeth as L.W.3. All three of them in

one voice made aforesaid allegations against the

petitioner and other accused. On consideration of the

said statements, the Investigating Officer laid charge

sheet against the petitioner and other accused and

same was taken on file as C.C.No.35 of 2025 on the file

of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal.

5. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal

Petition to quash the proceedings in the said C.C

contending that there are no orders promulgated by

any authority and therefore, the question of

committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC does

not arise. There is no obscene/objectionable material

in the poster. There is no loss to the 2nd respondent or

any Government authority and that the 2nd respondent

is not competent to lodge the complaint against the

petitioner herein with the aforesaid allegations.

KL,J

6. Whereas, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,

on instructions, would submit that there are specific

allegations against the petitioner herein and other

accused. The aforesaid contentions raised by the

petitioner are defences, which he has to take before the

trial Court during trial and it is for the trial Court to

consider the same.

7. 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 cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for KL,J

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."

KL,J

8. 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 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

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

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 KL,J

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."

KL,J

9. 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 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

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

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 KL,J

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 the present case, the investigating officer did

not follow the said procedure. Thus the proceedings in

the present CC against petitioner for the offence under

Section 188 of IPC cannot go on.

10. In the light of the aforesaid principle, the offence

punishable under Section 188 of IPC in C.C.No.35 of

2025 pending on the file of Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Parkal, is hereby quashed against

the petitioner.

11. Section 4 of the Act, 1977 deals with Penalty for

unauthorized disfigurement by advertisements and it

says that whoever affixes to, or inscribes or exhibits on

any place open to public view any advertisement

without the written consent of the owner or occupier or KL,J

person in management of the property in which such

place is situated shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may extend to

three months or with fine which shall not be less than

one thousand rupees but which may extend to two

thousand rupees, or with both.

12. As discussed supra, in the complaint dated

24.11.2023 and in his statement recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C, the 2nd respondent specifically

allege that the petitioner has pasted posters with his

party symbol and photograph on the electric poles,

without obtaining permission from the electricity

department. Therefore, the same amounts to an

offence under Section 4 of the Act. Secondly,

L.W.2/police constable of P.S, Parkal and

L.W.3/videographer, who accompanied the 2nd

respondent during such inspection also specifically

stated the same against the petitioner and other KL,J

accused. Therefore, prima facie, there are specific

allegations against the petitioner herein for the offence

under Section 4 of the Act, 1977.

13. It is settled law that in a petition under Section

528 of BNSS, this Court cannot conduct mini trial.

This       Court       also         cannot           consider

genuineness/correctness       of    the   statements           of

witnesses. In rarest of rare cases, this Court has

quashed the proceedings in a criminal case. If the

contents of the complaint and the statements of

witnesses, prima facie, constitutes an offence, this

Court cannot quash the proceedings in the C.C.

14. As discussed supra, prima facie there are specific

allegations against the petitioner herein and he has to

face trial and take the aforesaid defences before the

trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the

same.

KL,J

15. 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 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 KL,J

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. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a KL,J

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.

16. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private

Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 4, 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

. AIR 2021 SC 931 KL,J

to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of

rare cases with extreme caution.

17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this

Criminal Petition is allowed in part quashing the