Telangana High Court
Vaddiraju Ravichandra vs The State Of Telangana on 10 December, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11243 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.134 of 2019 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.
3. The petitioners herein are accused No.1 and accused No.2 in the aforesaid case. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections - 143, 341, 290, 188 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Regional Fire Officer, Inthezargunj police station, a case in Crime No.411 of 2018 was registered for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. On completion of investigation, Investigating Officer 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 laid charge sheet against the petitioners. The same was taken on file vide C.C. No.134 of 2019.
5. The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are that respondent No.2 was incharge of Election Flying Squad. Petitioner No.1 is a candidate contesting for Warangal East Assembly constituency on behalf of Indian National Congress party. Petitioner No.1 has conducted rally along with Vaddiraju Venkanna, Acha Vidyasagar, Nalgonda Ramesh, MA. Qayyum, Manda Sudhakar, Gorantla Raju, Juluri Sridhar, Thota Venu, Katakam Pentaiah, Kothapalli Srinu, Ganta Ravi Kumar and others at Deshaipet at 11:00 hours from Deshaipet Old Bodrai to CKM College without obtaining permission from the returning officer of the said constituency and thereby violated the Model Code of Conduct of Election. The said rally caused obstruction of traffic flow and public nuisance. The only allegation against the petitioner No.2 is that he along with others gathered and participated in the rally.
6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1, eye-witnesses as LWs.2 to 4, videographer and eye-witness as LW5, eye-witness 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 as LW6 and LWs.7 and 8 are panch witnesses. All of them stated that petitioners and others conducted the rally without obtaining permission from the returning officer and thereby violated the Model Code of Conduct of Election. The said rally caused the obstruction of traffic flow and public nuisance.
7. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant and it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:
"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 impris- onment 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 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 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."
8. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 141 of IPC deals with unlawful assembly and it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:
"141. Unlawful assembly.--
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is--
(First)-- To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 (Second)-- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or (Third)-- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or (Fourth)-- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or (Fifth)-- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation.-- An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."
9. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 143 of IPC deals with punishment and it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:
"143. Punishment.--
Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for an term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."6
KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024
10. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 149 of IPC deals with every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
11. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 290 of IPC deals with punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for and it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:
"290. Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for.--
Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may be extend to two hundred rupees."
12. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 268 of IPC deals with public nuisance and it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:
"268. Public nuisance.--
A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.
A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage."
13. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 339 of IPC deals with wrongful restraint and it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:
"339 Wrongful restraint.--
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
(Exception)-- The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
Illustration A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass. A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z."
14. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 341 of IPC deals with punishment for wrongful restraint and it is 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:
"341 Punishment for Wrongful restraint.--
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
15. In the light of the aforesaid provisions, as discussed supra, the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are that they conducted the rally without obtaining prior permission from the returning officer and thus violated the Model Code of Conduct of Election. The said rally caused obstruction of traffic flow and public nuisance.
16. 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 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 1 . Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 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 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 10 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 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."
17. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari 11 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 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 on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.
18. 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 2 . Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 3 . (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 12 KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 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 same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.13
KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 (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."
14
KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024 The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.
19. The Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of Cr.P.C. Further, in the complaint, there is reference to the petitioners and others, but the Investigating Officer did not conduct investigation with regard to others. Thus, contents of charge sheet including statements of LWs.1 and 2 lack the ingredients of Sections - 188 of IPC. The proceedings for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed.
20. Absolutely, there are no allegations against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences including forming of unlawful assembly with common object and wrongful restraint.
21. prima-facie, the contents of charge sheet and statements of witnesses lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.134 of 2019 is an abuse or process of law and the same are liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 15
KL,J Crl.P. No.11243 of 2024
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the present Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.134 of 2019 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, for the offences under Sections - 143, 341, 290, 188 read with 149 of IPC against the petitioners only.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 10.12.2024 Kgk