Telangana High Court
Nalamada Uthamkumar Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 23 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9605 of 2025
DATE: 23.03.2026
BETWEEN:
Nalamada Uthamkumar Reddy
.....petitioner/accused No.1
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
at Hyderabad and another.
.....Respondent/complainant
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.395 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9605 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 188 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2019 at about 20:00 hours, the complainant, who was working as Deputy Executive Engineer (R&B Sub Division) and MCC-IV In-charge for Nereducherla Mandal in connection with the Huzurnagar Assembly Bye-Elections, lodged a written complaint before the police stating that on the same day at about 16:30 hours, N. Uttam Kumar Reddy and Revanth Reddy, along with their followers, conducted a road show and public meeting in connection with the election campaign. It was alleged that around 40 cars and other vehicles participated in the road show and a DJ music system was used at high volume, thereby causing inconvenience to the public and disrupting traffic, and that the participants violated the Model Code of Conduct and the election permission conditions. Basing on the same, the case was registered for the above said offences.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.9605 of 2025
3. Heard Sri Madupu Shashikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Sri P. Vivek Kumar Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed as the mandatory requirement under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. has not been complied with, since the alleged offence under Section 188 IPC can be taken cognizance of only on a complaint filed before the Magistrate by the concerned public servant, whereas in the present case the proceedings were initiated on the basis of a police report. He further submitted that even if the allegations are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against the petitioner and that the proceedings are legally barred. He contended that the case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1, and reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9605 of 2025 Reddy v. State of Telangana 2, wherein similar proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2, respectively, submitted that the allegations in the complaint disclose that the petitioner and others conducted a political meeting and campaign in a religious place during the Huzurnagar Assembly Bye-Elections, thereby violating the election rules and the Model Code of Conduct. They further submitted that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed based on the material collected during the course of investigation. They further contended that the issues raised by the petitioner are matters to be decided during trial and not at the stage of quashing proceedings. Therefore, they prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
2 2023 SCC Online TS 4090 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9605 of 2025
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as there is a bar under Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C., whereunder, a written complaint has to be filed by the public servant/authorized officer, the Police has to follow the same, but the same is not followed in the present case. Further, at this stage, it is imperative to note the relevant Sections, which are as follows:
7. Section 188 of the I.P.C reads as follows:
Section 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 persons 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 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9605 of 2025 rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends 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".
8. Section 195(i) (a) of Cr.P.C., reads as under:-
"(i) (a) 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, or 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;"7
SKS,J Crl.P.No.9605 of 2025
9. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, a perusal of Section 188 of IPC makes clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. Further, Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C has to be followed. Therefore, the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction.
10. Further, it is significant to note the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hermareddy 3, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as under:
"8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 196 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it 3 AIR 1981 SC 1417 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9605 of 2025 is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 196 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld"
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In the instant case, a perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC including other penal provisions i.e., 341 of IPC. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hermareddy (supra) it is clear that if the offences formed part of the same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 191 of Cr.P.C., it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of accused for the other offences. Further, upon perusal of the complaint, it appears that there is no specific allegation in the complaint or the charge sheet that the petitioner conducted the meeting or campaign without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, and therefore the provisions of Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 are not attracted to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences stands vitiated. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. 9
SKS,J Crl.P.No.9605 of 2025
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.395 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K.SUJANA, J Date: 23.03.2026 SAI