Telangana High Court
Vanam Srikanth vs The State Of Telangana on 24 March, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6122 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.638 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ramannapet. The petitioners herein are accused No.1 to 6 in the said case. The offence alleged against them are under Sections - 188 and 269 of IPC.
2. Heard Mr. V.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of 1st respondent - State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.
3. The allegations against the petitioners in the charge sheet are that on 17.05.2020 at 10.00 hours, the petitioners herein have performed Hanuman Jayanthi celebrations in the village disobeying the promulgation orders promulgated by the State and Central 2 KL,J Crl.P. No6122 of 2021 Governments, in view of Lockdown due to COVID-19 situation, without wearing masks and social distance.
4. Basing on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, a case in Crime No.125 of 2020 was registered by the Police, Valigonda Police Station against the petitioners and took up investigation.
5. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offence and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.638 of 2020 against them for the aforesaid offences.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner, on 25.05.2020 sent a complaint through WhatApp to the District Panchayat Officer, Yadadri - Bhuvanagiri District for non functioning of water filter in their village i.e. Turkapally, which caused shortage of water to the people during pandemic situation. In view of that complaint, the persons viz: 1. Palsam Raju, 2. Marri Sathyanarayana, 3. Palsam Venkatsham, 4. Palsam Vasantha, 5. Palsam Karthi and 6. Gundu Jagan Reddy all together came into the premises of 1st petitioner and threatened him and his 3 KL,J Crl.P. No6122 of 2021 family members. On that the 1st petitioner lodged a complaint with the Police, Valigonda Police Station on 20.06.2020 at 13.00 hours which is registered as a case in Cr.No.124 of 2020 against the said persons who are close associates of the 2nd respondent herein. 2nd respondent exerted pressure on the 1st petitioner to withdraw Cr.No.124 of 2020 for which he refused. Then, as a counterblast, 2nd respondent implicated the petitioners herein in the present case. The date of offence i.e. 17.05.2020 falls in the lockdown period and the Hanuman temple in the village was kept closed as per Lockdown norms, the question of celebrations of Hanuman Jayanthi does not arise. The Investigating Officer does not choose to take statement of Priest of the said temple but recorded the statements of the followers of the village Sarpanch only. The complaint of the 2nd respondent subsequent to the complaint lodged by the 1st petitioner which fact clearly shows the guilty intention of the 2nd respondent. There is delay in lodging the complaint by the 2nd respondent. The 1st petitioner, being Advocate by profession, tried to solve the problems faced by the villagers. With the said 4 KL,J Crl.P. No6122 of 2021 submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.638 of 2020 against the petitioners herein.
7. On the other hand, Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners against the petitioners herein in the complaint, dated 20.06.2020, and after completion of investigation only the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein have to face trial and prove their innocence before the Court below during the course of trial. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the criminal petition.
8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the 1st petitioner on 25.05.2020 sent a complaint through WhatApp to the District Panchayat Officer, Yadadri - Bhuvanagiri District for non functioning of water filter in their village during pandemic situation. On that, the persons viz: 1. Palsam Raju, 2. Marri Sathyanarayana, 3. Palsam Venkatsham, 4. Palsam Vasantha, 5. Palsam Karthi and 6. Gundu Jagan Reddy all together came to the house of the 1st petitioner and threatened him and his family members. On that the 1st petitioner lodged a complaint with the 5 KL,J Crl.P. No6122 of 2021 Police, Valigonda Police Station on 20.06.2020 at 13.00 hours which is registered as a case in Cr.No.124 of 2020 against the said persons. Perusal of the complaint of the 2nd respondent would reveal that the same is lodged on 20.06.2020 at 16.00 hours against the petitioners herein. The date of offence is 17.05.2020. There is delay of more than one month in lodging a complaint by the 2nd respondent, but no explanation was offered by the 2nd respondent for the said delay. Perusal of both the complaints, the complaint of the 1st petitioner is on 20.06.2020 at 13.00 hours but the complaint of the 2nd respondent is at 16.00 hours on the same day which is subsequent to the complaint lodged by the 1st petitioner. No explanation was offered by the 2nd respondent for preferring the complaint at that time. Therefore, the above aspects would clearly show the present case of the 2nd respondent is a counterblast to the case of the 1st petitioner.
9. In view of the above facts and submissions of the parties, it is relevant to extract the Sections 188 and 269 of IPC which are as follows:-
"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.--Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated 6 KL,J Crl.P. No6122 of 2021 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 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."
"269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.--Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to 7 KL,J Crl.P. No6122 of 2021 believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
v) In order to convict any person for commission of offence punishable under Section - 188 IPC, the Court has to satisfy itself that the accused had not only violated the order promulgated by a public servant but also the accused had actual knowledge of issuance of such order.
vi) In Bhoop Singh Tyagi v. State1, the Delhi High Court held that a person booked under Section - 188 of IPC must have actual knowledge of public servant's order requiring him to do or abstain from doing some act. It was further held that acquiring or gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite and any proof of general notification promulgated by a public servant would not satisfy the requirement.
1 . 2002 Cri.L.J. 2872 8 KL,J Crl.P. No6122 of 2021
12. Section 188 of IPC would clearly show that any person knowingly abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys the order of promulgation by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, and such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, is liable for punishment. But in the case on hand, the 2nd respondent failed to show which order the petitioners have disobeyed and to whom caused obstruction etc. She has not produced any piece of paper to show that the petitioners have conducted celebrations of Hanuman Jayanthi and have committed violation of lockdown norms and became liable for spread of pandemic. Moreover, there are complaints against each other. The contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, the 2nd respondent fails to make out a case against the petitioners herein.
13. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.638 of 2020 on the file of 9 KL,J Crl.P. No6122 of 2021 Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Ramannapet, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein/A.1 to A.6.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:24.03.2022.
vvr