Telangana High Court

Sri Bandi Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 17 June, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

       CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7170 of 2025

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr.Arvind Kumar Katta, learned counsel for

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 and Mr.Arun Kumar

Doddla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing

for respondent No.1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.137 of 2024 on the file of the learned

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases

relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioners herein are the accused in the aforesaid

C.C. The offence alleged against them is under Section

188 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2nd respondent lodged a

complaint before Police, Penpahad Police Station, 2 KL, J Crl.P.No.7170 of 2025

Suryapet, alleging that on 15.11.2021, petitioner No.1,

leader of Bharatiya Janata Party, and his party members

i.e., petitioner Nos.2 to 5 went to Anantharam,

Anaajipuram Village, through Penpahad Mandal, in a rally

with the vehicle convoy about 15 vehicles and about 100

activists with the flags of the concerned Party, without

obtaining permission from the Returning Officer or Police

Department. Thus, they had violated the Model Code of

Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India.

Thereupon, Police, Penpahad Police Station, registered a

case in Crime No.167 of 2021 against the petitioners for

the offence punishable under Section 188 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as

L.W.1, Police Constable as L.W.2, Sarpanch, Anajipuram

Village as LW.3 and one Mamidi Janaiah as L.W.4. After

completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet 3 KL, J

against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence, before the

learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Suryapet. The same was taken on file by the learned

learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Suryapet, and was transferred to the learned Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases

relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad, and was numbered

as C.C.No.137 of 2024. Challenging the proceedings in the

said C.C., petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended

that petitioners went to Anantharam, Anaajipuram Village,

through Penpahad Mandal, in a rally with the vehicle

convoy about 15 vehicles and about 100 activists with the

flags of the concerned Party, without obtaining prior

permission and thus, they had violated the Model Code of

Conduct. In the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent, there

are specific allegations levelled against petitioners.

4 KL, J

6. In view of the above 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 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.

5 KL, J

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."

7. It is also apt to note that 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 of erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh 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

. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 6 KL, J

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 7 KL, J

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."

8. 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

. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 8 KL, J

including N.T. Rama Rao (supra) 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, the learned Single Judge of High

Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad quashed the proceedings in the C.C.

mentioned therein by exercising power under Section 482

of Cr.P.C. It is 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

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 9 KL, J

cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is

against the purport of Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.

9. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court cautioned

that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly

and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare 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 complaint or in FIR. In the said judgment, the

Apex Court laid down certain guidelines/parameters for

exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same

read 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

10 KL, J

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 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.

11 KL, J

(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 a

catena of decisions.

10. As discussed supra, in the present case, the

Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid

down under Section 155 of Cr.P.C., and as such,

continuation of the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C.

against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against

the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.137 of 2024 on

the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First

Class for Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, 12 KL, J