Telangana High Court

Annamaneni Santhosh Kumar And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.690 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal

Procedure Code, by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 to quash

the proceedings against them in C.C.No.158 of 2019 on the file of

VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171(E)

of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and section 127 (A) of

Representation of People Act (for short 'RP Act').

2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for petitioners

as well as Smt. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the night of

22.11.2018 at 20.00 hours, while flying squad team were

conducting vehicle checking, they stopped a car bearing No.TS03

EJ 4788 and when they checked the car, found net cash of

Rs.6,50,000/- and election pamphlets pertaining to Vaddiraju

Ravichandra contested candidate for distributing the same to the

voters in violation of Modal Code of Conduct. Immediately by

securing presence of mediators they interrogated accused No.3

and recorded confessional statement, wherein he stated about

accused Nos.4 and 5 and they proceeded to the house of

accused Nos.4 and 5 found net cash of Rs.14,96,890/- in the

presence of the same mediators. They seized total Rs.21,46,980/-

net cash and car. The Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of

complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.523 of 2018 for the offences

punishable under sections 188, 171(E) of IPC and section 127(A)

of R.P.Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that

the entire case of the prosecution is based on the confession

statement of the accused. Except the confession statement, no

material was collected during the investigation by the police in

proof of the allegations alleged against the petitioners. The

petitioners were falsely implicated in the above crime and have

nothing to do with the present crime. It is not the case of the

prosecution that the cash was seized from the petitioners while

they are distributing to the voters.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while praying for quash

of proceedings against the accused persons, relied upon two

decisions held by this Court in Sunil Kumar Ahuja and another

v. State of Telangana and another 1, wherein it was held as-

"171-B. 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

2023(2) ALD (Crl.) 304 (TS)

(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.

(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."

171-E. Punishment for bribery- Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.

Explanation. "Treating" means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision.

8. To attract an offence punishable under Section 171-E of IPC, the ingredients of Section 171-B of IPC have to be fulfilled. If a person gives any gratification to any person for exercising any electoral right or for having exercised such right or accepts such amount from any person as a reward for exercising any right or inducing or attempts to induce any person in exercise of such rights amounts to bribery. In the present case, the amounts were allegedly found in the possession of the petitioners. The police assume that the said amounts are meant for political leaders to bribe the voters in the ensuing elections of December, 2018. Admittedly, no person was bribed or any money was accepted by those people for such purpose of exercising electoral franchise. For the said reasons, the offence under Section 171-B of IPC is not made out and consequently the question of prosecuting these petitioners for the offence of bribery punishable under Section 171-E of IPC does not arise.

In Tummala Rama Brahmam @ Ram and another v.

State of Andhra Pradesh 2, wherein it was held as-

4. Having regard to all the above discussion, so far as the offence under Section 188 I.P.C. is concerned it must be only by private complaint as offence affecting the administration of justice or the like and the report registered as a crime as if a cognizable offence and investigation taken up and filing of charge sheet for its taken up and filing of charge-sheet for its taking of cognizance per se

2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 565

unsustainable. So far as the cognizance taken from any permission accorded to take cognizance taken from any permission accorded to take cognizance in the non-cognizable offences in three out of the four matters by the learned Magistrate with a single sentence as 'permitted' is per se unsustainable as outcome of non-application of judicial mind, leave about in the other matter, there is no such permission even for bar to the police to register as if a cognizable offence for its un-sustainability. It is needless to go into the other merits regarding the application of Section 171-E or F of IPC., as to its an election poster or the calendar or the sticker or pamphlet as the case may be for what is discussed above. So far as offence under Section 127-A of the R.P.Act concerned even, importantly the offence is for non-bearing on the pamphlet, poster or the like, names and addresses of the printer and publisher claimed not printed and published to constitute the offence, the same is not even seized and produced before the Court either with the crime registered for investigation as Part-I C.D. to form part of it or even with charge- sheet. When there is no seizure and production of the material which is material for the Court to ascertain. In the absence of which in none of the matters there could be anything to make out a case under Section 127-A of the R.P.Act to sustain.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

submitted that the petitioners have committed the offences

alleged against them and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners

are prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 188

and 171-E of IPC and Section 127(A) of RP Act. It is not the case

that the flying squad has caught hold of the petitioners while

distributing the amount to the people, so as to indulge them for

the offence under section 171-E of IPC and they only caught hold

of them while accused No.1 is carrying cash in a car and in view

of the pamphlets in the car, it is assumed as the money is being

distributed for electoral purposes to the public in general.

8. Coming to the section 188 of IPC, as per section 195 of

Cr.P.C.-

No Court shall take cognizance--

1. (i) 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, 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;

Wherein under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a "complaint" means an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with the intention of initiating action under the Code, that a person, known or unknown, has committed an offense, but does not include a police report.

Therefore, it must be a private complaint made by a public

servant and mere reporting the matter before police station and

filing a case is untenable. Hence, continuation of criminal

proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of

process of law.

9. In view of the judgments cited above and submissions and

for the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 5 in

C.C.No.158 of 2019 on the file of VI Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate at Warangal are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.