Padmarao Goud vs State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 3489 Tel

Telangana High Court

Padmarao Goud vs State Of Telangana on 27 March, 2025

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.4435 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER:

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.427 of 2024 arising out of Crime

No.112 of 2024 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate of

First Class for Excise Cases, Nampally, against the petitioner herein -

accused No.4.

2. Heard Mr. G. Santhosh Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1 - State.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.4 in the

aforesaid C.C. No.427 of 2024 arising out of Crime No.112 of 2024.

The offence alleged against them is under Section - 188 of IPC.

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the

petitioner herein is that on 30.05.2024 while respondent No.2 was

discharging his election duties as In-charge of patrolling duty from

Charminar to Madina, the petitioner herein and others conducted press

KL,J

conference for not removing the symbols of Charminar and Kakatiya

Kala Thoranam from the Telangana State Logo which the present

Government supposed to be removed, without any permission from

Returning Officer or Police Department and thereby they have

violated the Model Code of Conduct. Thus, the petitioner committed

the aforesaid offence.

5. Therefore, respondent No.2 gave a report to the Police,

Charminar Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime

No.112 of 2024 for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein

and took up investigation.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

examined respondent No.2 herein as LW.1 and LWs.2 to 5 as eye-

witnesses. The Investigating Officer also secured presence of LWs.6

and 7 as panch witnesses for scene of offence. After completion of

investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein

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

C.C. No.427 of 2024 by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nampally.

KL,J

7. Mr. G. Santhosh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would contend that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged

against him. To attract an offence under Section - 188 of IPC, there

must be an order promulgated by a public servant. In the instant case,

there is no such order. No independent witness was examined by the

Investigating Officer except examining the police officials. Therefore,

the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. No.427 of 2024 arising out of

Crime No.112 of 2024 cannot go on against the petitioner herein and

the same are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.

8. Whereas, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioner and others conducted press conference without

obtaining prior permission and thereby they have violated the Model

Code of Conduct. There are also specific allegations levelled against

the petitioner. These are all triable issues which this Court cannot

consider in a petition under Section - 528 of the BNSS as the same

have to be considered after a full-fledged trial only by the trial Court.

Thus, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.

KL,J

9. In view of the above rival 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.

KL,J

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."

10. 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 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

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

KL,J

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 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.

KL,J

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."

11. 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 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

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

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335

KL,J

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

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

12. 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:

"(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

KL,J

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.

(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 catena of

decisions.

13. As discussed above, in the present case, the Investigating

Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of

KL,J

Cr.P.C. and, as such, the proceedings for the offence under Section -

188 of IPC are liable to be quashed against the petitioner herein. \

14. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and

the proceedings in C.C. No.427 of 2024 arising out of Crime No.112

of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for

Excise Cases, Nampally, are hereby quashed against the petitioner

herein - accused No.4 alone. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous

petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J March 27, 2025 ssm