Telangana High Court

Sri.Madhavaneni Raghunandan Rao A1 vs The State Of Telangana on 11 March, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

          CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3544 of 2025
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondents.

2. This application is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya

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

proceedings against him in C.C.No.466 of 2023 on the file of

the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial

of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the aforesaid C.C.

The offence alleged him is under Section 188 of IPC.

2nd respondent lodged a complaint before Police, Peddavoora

Police Station, alleging that on 10.04.2021, during elections of

Nagarjunasagar Constituency, petitioner along with A.2, being

the in-charge of BJP party for the said constituency, and others

participated in the campaign programme at Vutlapally and

Pulicherla Villages without prior permission from the 2 KL, J

authorities concerned. Thus, they have violated the Election

Rules. Thereupon, Police, Peddavoora Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No.127 of 2021 against petitioner

and others for the offence punishable under Section 188 of

IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as L.W.1,

Police Constable as L.W.2, Videographer as L.W.3 and

Investigating Officer as L.W.4. After completion of

investigation, the police laid charge sheet against petitioner

and others for the aforesaid offence and the same was taken on

file by 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.466 of 2023. Challenging the

proceedings in the said C.C., petitioner/A.1 filed the present

Criminal Petition.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that petitioner

and others have conducted election campaign without

obtaining prior permission and thus, they have violated the

Model Code of Conduct. In the complaint lodged by 3 KL, J

2nd respondent, there are specific allegations levelled against

petitioners.

5. 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.

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 4 KL, J

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."

6. 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, 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 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

. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 5 KL, J

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 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."

7. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra

Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari 6 KL, J

District 2, relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama

Rao (supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, 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 at Hyderabad for the States of

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh 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 cognizance on the

complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of

Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.

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

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 7 KL, J

8. 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 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 8 KL, J

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. (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.

9. 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 petitioner/A.1 is an abuse of process

of law. Therefore, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C.

against petitioner/A.1 are liable to be quashed.

9 KL, J

10. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.466 of 2023 on the

file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for

Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad, are