Telangana High Court

Ram Rajaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 9 June, 2025

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


          CRIMINAL PETITION No.5158 of 2025


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1

to 11 in C.C.No.366 of 2021 on the file of the learned II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 186,

290 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the de facto

complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating

that the accused persons came to the Police Station and

questioned her about registering a case. They allegedly

abused her and ignored her response when she explained that

the Officer was on another duty. When she asked petitioner

No.3 why she was recording a video on her cell phone, all the

accused persons allegedly interrupted her while she was

discharging her duties. Basing on the said complaint, the

Police registered a case in Crime No.35 of 2021 for the

offences punishable under Sections 186, 290 and 506 read

SKS,J

with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed

charge sheet vide C.C.no.366 of 2021 before the learned II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

3. Heard Sri Ambala Raju, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and

baseless and that the ingredients in the charge sheet do not

constitute any offence. He further submitted that since there

is a bar under Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C, that when the

complaint is not made by the public servant/authorized officer

in written, the same cannot be treated as the offence

punishable under Section 186 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel

further submitted that the prime offence was under Section

186 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C bars taking cognizance

of such offences, except upon the complaint as required under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C., therefore, the whole proceedings are

without jurisdiction. Hence, he prayed the Court to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners.

SKS,J

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that the petitioners have also been charged for the

offences other than Section 186 of IPC. Hence, the learned

Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid

offences, on the basis of the final report submitted by the

Police. As such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated. Under

such circumstances, the cognizance taken by the learned

Magistrate, cannot be said to be one without authority of law.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal

petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the

learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on

record, it appears that the petitioners were charged for the

offences punishable under Section 186, 341 and 506 of IPC.

It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that as there is a bar under Section 195 (1) (a) of

Cr.P.C., whereunder, a written complaint has to be filed by the

public servant/authorized officer, the Police has to follow the

same, but the same is not followed in the present case.

Further, at this stage, it is imperative to note the relevant

Sections, which are as follows:

SKS,J

7. Section 188 of the I.P.C reads as follows:

Section 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 persons 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 tends 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

SKS,J

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. Section 195(i) (a) of Cr.P.C., reads as under:-

"(i) (a) 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, or 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;"

9. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, a perusal of

Section 186 of IPC makes clear that to take cognizance there

should be a written complaint and such complaint should be

filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or

the officer above his rank. Further, Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C.,

defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to

the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on

such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under

Section 190 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the procedure

SKS,J

prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C has to be followed.

Therefore, the first information report, charge sheet and the

order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without

jurisdiction.

10. Further, it is significant to note the judgment of the

Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v.

Hermareddy 1, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as under:

"8. 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 196 (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 196 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld"

(Emphasis supplied)

11. In the instant case, a perusal of the charge sheet

discloses that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for

the offence punishable under Section 186 of IPC including

other penal provisions i.e., 341 and 506 of IPC. As per the

AIR 1981 SC 1417

SKS,J

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hermareddy

(supra) it is clear that if the offences formed part of the same

transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 191 of

Cr.P.C., it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution

of accused for the other offences. In view of the above, the FIR