Telangana High Court
Sampathi Shiva Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 October, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4033 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.548 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171(B) r/w 171 (E) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 123 (1) (A) of the representation of the people act, 1951 (for short 'RP Act').
2. Heard Ms.Niharika Ture Rao, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2023 at 19.00 hours, de facto complainant along with his staff while conducting vehicle checking tried to stop a Hyundai i20 car bearing No.AP 23 AG 3719 and Toyota Innova car bearing No.TS 13 G T/R 7153 but the accused persons did not stop, they however chased the car and caught hold of them. When they checked the cars, there were three persons in the Hyundai car and on enquiry they stated their names and that they were transporting money of an amount 2 of two crores from Hayathnagar to Choutuppal with escort of the persons in Innova car. On that Inspector of police taken them into custody and informed superiors and summoned two mediators and conducted confession and seizure panchanama. During confession all the five accused persons confessed that on the instructions of accused No.6, they all together were transporting the said money for election purpose. Hence they seized the cash, phones and the said cars and took possession of all the accused persons and took to the police station. The Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.1323 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 188, 171(B) r/w 171 (E) of IPC and Section 123 (1) (A) of RP Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the offences alleged are false, untenable and illegal and are liable to be quashed. The registration of the impugned FIR for the offence alleged under Section 188 IPC itself is impermissible in law, wherein the section 195(1) Cr.P.C. mandates that any complaint for offence under section 188 of IPC is to be filed by the public servant concerned. It is further evident that no complaint in writing has been moved by the public servant concerned as is required under section 195(1) Cr.P.C. Even assuming the allegations to be true, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners herein confessed that the seized money was being 3 transported for the purpose of distributing the same to the public who attends the meeting. That the said allegation in its entirety does not constitute the ingredient of section 171-B IPC, wherein the essential ingredient is that persons should have been bribed or any money should have been accepted by the people for such purpose of exercising the electoral franchise. Further, the respondent authorities without examining the tenability of the allegations have mechanically registered the offence under section 123 of the RP Act. It is settled law that section 123 of RP Act would only amount to corrupt practice, providing a cause of action for filing of an election petition under Section 81 read with section 100 and 101 of the RP Act, there can be no penal action initiated by way of criminal prosecution. Except the confession statements, 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. Hence, prays the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4
6. In the light of the above submissions, it is apt to note that section 188 of IPC which deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant', 171B of IPC which deals with 'Bribery' and 171E of IPC which deals with the 'punishment for bribery' and the same are extracted as under:
"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a 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 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."
"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
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:5
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."
7. In Sunil Kumar Ahuja and another v. State of Telangana and another 1, it was held as-
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.
8. As per section 195 of Cr.P.C.-
1 2023(2) ALD (Crl.) 304 (TS) 6
1. No Court shall take cognizance--
a) (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;
b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199,200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-
clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
2. Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint;
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
3. In clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
4. For the purposes of clause (b) of Sub-Section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to 7 which appeals ordinarily lie from appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate; Provided that-- a. where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; b. where appeals lie to a civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
9. As per section 123 of RP Act-
123. Corrupt practices.--The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:--
(1) "Bribery" that is to say--
(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing--
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to--
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;
10. A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioners are prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 171-E r/w 171 B of IPC. 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 were carrying cash in a car and in view of the confession, it is assumed as the money is being distributed for electoral purposes to the public in general. Further as per the provisions of 195 of 8 Cr.P.C., an offence under section 188 of IPC must be a private complaint made by a public servant and mere registering of a case by the sub inspector of police and filing a case is untenable. Even as per sections 171-B r/w 171E of IPC and 123 of RP Act also the provisions under the said sections are not attracted. Hence, no case is made out against the petitioners herein. As such, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.
11. In view of the judgment cited above and submissions and for the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.548 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 07.10.2025 BV