Padi Kaushik Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 454 Tel

Telangana High Court

Padi Kaushik Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 9 June, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.166 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing

Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the

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

quash the proceedings in C.C. No.268 of 2024 pending on the file

of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under

Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid

C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 171-C &

171-F read with 188 and 506 of IPC and Section - 123 (2) of the

Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'R.P. Act').

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, MCC

Nodal Officer, Kamalapur (MPDO, Kamalapur), Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kamalapur Police Station, registered a case in Crime

KL,J

No.247 of 2023 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

As per the report given by respondent No.2, dated 29.11.2023 to

the police, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are

as follows:

i. The petitioner herein is the contesting candidate for 31

Huzurabad Assembly Constituency on behalf of Bharathiya

Rashtra Samithi (BRS) Party for the General Elections held

in the year 2023.

ii. On 28.11.2023 between 11.00 A.M. and 12.00 noon, the

petitioner violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) by

saying "Meeru Vote Veyakunte Maa Mugguru Shavalanu

Chudandi ani esandharbanga Teliajesthunnanu, Meeru Vote

vesi lead isthe Vijayayatraku Vostha, ledante Maa Shava

Yatraku Meeru Randi". (i.e., If you don't vote, then be

prepared to see the dead bodies of three of us. I am telling

you this in that context. If you vote and give us a lead, we

will begin a victory procession; otherwise, you have to come

to our funeral procession).

iii. After verifying the Video record submitted by VST Team on

28.11.2023, respondent No.2 gave the aforesaid report with

KL,J

the Police concerned to take action against the petitioner on

the ground that the aforesaid statements would amount to

violation of MCC.

5. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the police,

Kamalapur Police Station, registered the aforesaid crime. During

the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the

statements of respondent No.2 as LW.1, Mr. K. Veeraswamy, Head

Constable-642 of the very same Police Station as LW.2 as he is the

circumstantial witness and Member of MCC Team; Mr. Abdul

Wahed, Senior Assistant in Panchayat Raj Department, Huzurabad

as LW.3 as he the eye witness who submitted the Video Report and

spoke the facts of the case; Mr. Ande Ravinder and Mr. Tanguturi

Anand as LWs.4 and 5, the eye-witnesses, and LWs.6 and 7 are

panch witnesses.

6. After completion of investigation, the Investigating

Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid

charges and learned Magistrate took cognizance against the

petitioner vide C.C. No.314 of 2024 by learned Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Hanamkonda. Later it was transferred to

the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases

KL,J

under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad and the aforesaid

C.C. was re-numbered as C.C. No.268 of 2024. Perusal of the

statement of L.W.1 would reveal that he has reiterated the contents

of the complaint, dated 29.11.2023, while LWs.2 to 5 reiterated

what they have stated in their statements made under Section - 161

of Cr.P.C.

7. It is apt to note that Section - 188 of IPC which 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 impris- onment 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

KL,J

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."

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

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

KL,J

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 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

KL,J

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."

9. 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 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

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

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

KL,J

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.

10. In view of the above, the Investigating Officer did not

follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of Cr.P.C.

Further, contents of charge sheet including statements of LWs.1 to

5 lack the ingredients of Section - 188 of IPC. Therefore, the

proceedings in the said C.C. for the offence under Section - 188 of

IPC are liable to be quashed against the petitioner herein .

11. As far as offences under Sections - 171C and 171F of

IPC are concerned, Section 171C deals with 'undue influence at

elections', while 171F deals with punishment for an offence under

Section -171C. the same are extracted below:

KL,J

"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."

"171F. Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election- Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both."

KL,J

12. Keeping the language employed in Section - 171C in

mind, perusal of the report dated 29.11.2023 given by respondent

No.2 would reveal that the petitioner has made specific statements

as extracted above. Prima facie, the statements made by the

petitioner are very specific which would certainly create undue

influence at elections amounting to threaten any voter or any

person. Be that as it may, whether the petitioner made such

statement giving rise a threat to the voter etc., is a triable issue

which has to be decided only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, at

this stage, this Court cannot decide the same in a petition filed

under Section - 528 of the BNSS.

13. Similarly, the offence under Section - 506 of IPC deals

with 'punishment for criminal intimidation'. In view of the

specific allegation levelled against the petitioner in the manner

stated above violating the Model Code of Conduct and in view of

the discussion made while dealing with the offences under Sections

- 171C and 171F, the proceedings under Section - 506 of IPC also

cannot be quashed at this stage.

KL,J

14. As far as Section - 123 (2) of R.P. Act is concerned,

Section - 123 deals with 'corrupt practices' and sub-section (2)

says regarding 'bribery'. The same is extracted as 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--

xxxxx (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 is 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 divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of

KL,J

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.

(3) xxxxx...."

15. Perusal of statements of LWs.1 to 5, prima facie, would

support the contents of report given by LW.1 to the police. Even

the contents of charge sheet would also prima facie make out the

ingredients of the aforesaid offence. Whether the statement made

by the petitioner would have impact on the voter and it amounts to

an undue influence etc., are all triable issues which have to be

decided only after full-fledged trial, but not in a petition filed under

Section - 528 of the BNSS.

16. In a petition filed under Section - 528 of the BNSS, this

Court cannot conduct mini-trial and cannot consider the genuinity

of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section - 161 of

Cr.P.C. Further, the Court in a petition filed under Section - 528 of

the BNSS is not required to see which particular offence is made

KL,J

out, it has to see whether the gravamen of allegations disclose

commission of an offence.

17. In Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand 4 the Apex

Court held as follows:

"15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation.

17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a

. (2024) 10 SCC 527

KL,J

cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed.

18. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the court, the court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR."

18. 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:

KL,J

"(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.

KL,J

(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 also reiterated by the Apex Court in catena

of decisions.

19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid

down in the aforesaid decisions, the present Criminal Petition is

allowed in part quashing the proceedings against the petitioner

KL,J

herein in C.C. No.268 of 2024 pending on the file of the Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act

(Excise Court), Hyderabad for the offence under Section - 188 of

IPC alone. However, the proceedings in C.C. No.268 of 2024 shall

go on in respect of other offences i.e., Sections - 171-C, 171-F, 506

of IPC and Section - 123 (2) of R.P. Act.

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

in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 9th June, 2025 Mgr