Telangana High Court

Sarvey Satyanarayana vs The State Of Telangana on 26 June, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

          CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2411 of 2025
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner/A.2 and

Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing the learned

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 in C.C.No.15514 of

2019 on the file of the learned XII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, in respect of Crime

No.27 of 2019 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, registered

for the offences punishable under Section 171B IPC read with

Section 171E IPC, Section 171C IPC read with Section

171F IPC and Section 123 of the Representation of the People

Act, 1951, on the basis of the complaint dated 06.12.2018

lodged by 2nd respondent before the Police, Begum Bazar

Police Station, Hyderabad.

2 KL, J

3. In the said complaint dated 06.12.2018, it is alleged that

on 06.12.2018, at about 11:30 hours, when he along with PS

staff and West Zone Task Force team was performing

patrolling duty, he apprehended A.1 who was having an

amount of Rs.50,00,000/- without any valid document in Car

bearing No.AP9 BA 4646 (Toyota Innova). On enquiry, he

revealed that he had planned to give the said cash to the

petitioner/A.2 for distributing among the voters of

Secunderabad Cantonment Constituency to cast their vote in

his favour. Thereupon, the Inspector of Police, Begum Bazar

Police Station, Hyderabad, has registered a case in Crime

No.198 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section

171B read with Section 171E IPC, Section 171C read with

Section 171F IPC, on 10.12.2018, against A.1 and A.2.

Thereafter, the said crime was transferred to the Central Crime

Station which in turn re-assigned FIR.No.27 of 2019 against

A.1 and A.2.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer has recorded the statement of 2nd respondent/L.W.1 as 3 KL, J

de facto complainant; statements of L.Ws.2 to 7 as

eyewitnesses; L.Ws.8 to 12 as circumstantial witnesses, and

L.Ws.13 to 16 as panch witnesses; L.Ws.17 and 18 as the

Nodal Officers, Reliance Jio & Airtel, Andhra Pradesh, who

had furnished the CAF & 65b IEA Certificates, and L.W.19 as

RTO, TSRTA, Central Zone, Hyderabad City, who furnished

ownership particulars of the subject vehicle. On consideration

of the said statements, the Investigating Officer laid

charge sheet against A.1 and the petitioner/A.2. The same was

taken on file vide C.C.No.15514 of 2019 against A.1 and the

petitioner/A.2 for the aforesaid offences.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A.2 would submit that

as per the statement of L.W.8, he has received a parcel in the

name of the petitioner/A.2 and on the instructions of the

petitioner/A.2, he handed over the same to A.1. He does not

know the contents of the said parcel. L.Ws.10 to 12 are the

employees of Marudhar Express Services Private Limited.

L.W.8 is the Manager of the said company. The statements of

L.Ws.9 to 12 are in the same lines as that of L.W.8.

4 KL, J

6. L.Ws.6 and 7 are business people and according to them,

they have found police making enquiry with A.1 with regard

to the money and the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and pamphlets

were seized from A.1 in his car. L.W.2 is the Sub-Inspector of

Police, West Zone Task Force. L.W.3 is the Police Constable,

Gosha Mahal Police Station. L.W.4 is the Police Constable of

West Zone Task Force.

7. Section 171B IPC deals with bribery. It is relevant and is

extracted below.

"171B. Bribery.--

(1)Whoever--

(i)gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or

(ii)accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right; commits the offence of bribery:

Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section.

(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.

5 KL, J

(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward."

Section 171E IPC deals with punishment for bribery.

8. Section 171C IPC deals with undue influence at

elections. It is relevant and is extracted hereunder.

"171C. Undue influence at elections.--

(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of undue influence at an election. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), whoever--

(a)threatens any candidate or voter, or any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with injury of any kind, or

(b)induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1).

(3) A declaration of public policy or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this section."

6 KL, J

Section 171F IPC deals with punishment for undue

influence or personation at an election.

9. Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act,

1951, is relevant and is extracted below.

"123. Corrupt practices.--

The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:--

(1)"Bribery", that is to say--

(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing--

(a)a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or

(b)an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to--

(i)a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature;

(ii)an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;

(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward--

7 KL, J

(a)by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being, a candidate; or

(b)by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in section 78.

(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right:

Provided that--

(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who--

(i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community; or

(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of

8 KL, J

divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause;

(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this clause."

10. As stated supra, except the aforesaid witnesses, the

Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of any

voter to contend that the amount seized was used for the

purpose of distributing the same to the voter and to influence

them to exercise their vote in favour of the petitioner/A.2. In

fact, there was no investigation on the above said lines. The

entire investigation is only with regard to the seizure of money

from A.1. There is no dispute with regard to the seizure of

money and also pamphlets etc., which alone is not sufficient to

prosecute the petitioner/A.2 for the aforesaid offences. The

Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of any

voter of Secunderabad Cantonment Constituency. The

Investigating Officer has not conducted investigation on the

above said lines.

9 KL, J

11. It is relevant to note that vide common order dated

20.02.2019 in Crl.P.Nos.460 and 464 of 2019, this Court

directed the police to release the subject vehicle by imposing

certain conditions. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the same was complied with. It is also apt to note

that A.1 has filed a Criminal Petition vide Crl.P.No.276 of

2020 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings

against him in the aforesaid C.C. Vide order dated 29.03.2023,

this Court allowed the said Criminal Petition and quashed the

proceedings in the said C.C. against A.1.

12. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice

of this Court that the prosecution did not challenge the said

order and it had attained finality. As discussed supra, the

contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the

aforesaid offences. Except the confessional statement of A.1,

there is no evidence against A.2.

13. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, the Apex Court

cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very

(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 10 KL, J

sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare

cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is

sought, the 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 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

11 KL, J

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.

(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.

14. In the light of the above, continuation of the proceedings

in C.C.No.15514 of 2019 against the petitioner/A.2 is an abuse

of process of law. Therefore, the said proceedings are liable to

be quashed.

15. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.15514 of 2019 on

the file of the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan 12 KL, J

Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in respect of the

petitioner/A.2.

16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand