Telangana High Court
Tandu Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 25 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7265 OF 2025
Mr. L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Deepak Misra, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Mr. Dr. Surepalli Prashanth, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondents.
ORDER:
1. The petitioners pray for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2025 for the offences under sections 188, 171 (B) read with 171 (E) and 171(H) of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
2. Both the petitioners have been named in the Chargesheet dated 24.05.2024. The C.C. is presently pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad ('Trial Court').
3. The Chargesheet dated 24.05.2024 arose out of a complaint received on 10.05.2024 at 0400 hours from one Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad. The Complaint states that the complainant had been deployed as the Police Station night duty officer at 2200 hours on 09.05.2024 and that the complainant along with other staff members and Flying Squad-1A Team members was performing vehicle checking at Lingampally X Roads, Kachiguda, Hyderabad from 0200 hours to 0300 hours on 10.05.2024, when at about 0240 hours, the complainant and the others stopped a 2 vehicle bearing No.TS-09-EZ-6633 Fortuner Car (White Colour) coming from Kachiguda X Road to Railway Station Road. On searching the vehicle, they found one bag containing an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) suspected to be unaccounted cash. On enquiry, the person in the said car revealed his name to be Tandu Srinivas (petitioner No.1) but he did not provide any proper documents in relation to the cash. On questioning, the petitioner No.1 stated that the four wheeler and the cash of Rs.10,00,000/- belonged to one Sri Boora Narsaiah Goud (petitioner No.2) who was contesting as a candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party ('BJP') from the Bhongir Parliamentary Constituency and that the cash was to be distributed to the voters in the Bhongir Parliamentary Constituency for winning the Elections.
4. A Chargesheet dated 24.05.2024 was filed against the petitioners pursuant to an FIR in Cr.No.178 of 2024 dated 10.05.2024. The Chargesheet reproduces and reiterates the facts stated in the Complaint. The Chargesheet also records that the petitioner No.1 was taken into custody where his confessional statement was recorded in the presence of two mediators. As per the confessional statement, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the four wheeler bearing No.TS-09-EZ-6633 were seized from the possession of the petitioner No.1 in the presence of Flying Squad-1A team members. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 was brought to the Police Station along with the seized property. A case in Cr.No.178 of 2024 was registered against the petitioners for further investigation. The 3 Chargesheet further records the steps taken during the course of investigation including the recording of the statements of the witnesses, incorporated in Part II of the Case Diary which serve to corroborate the contents of the F.I.R. The Chargesheet further records that the petitioner No.1 admitted to having committed this offence to induce voters to cast their votes in favour of the petitioner No.2 for his election as an M.P. from the Bhongir Parliamentary Constituency in the General Elections to House of People, 2024.
5. The Chargesheet records that while the investigation was in progress, the petitioner No.2 came to the Police Station on 21.05.2024 and surrendered by admitting his guilt. The Chargesheet concludes that from the evidence collected in the investigation, it is revealed that the petitioners are friends and that the petitioner No.2 was contesting as a candidate of the BJP for election as an M.P. from the Bhongir Parliamentary Constituency and as per the instructions of the petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.1 was transporting an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from Hyderabad to Bhongir to distribute the same to voters for the petitioner No.2's success in the Elections. The vehicle was seized on 10.05.2024 at 0230 hours while the petitioner No.1 was taking the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from his house to Bhongir in the petitioner No.2's car. Charges were accordingly framed under sections 188, 171 (B) read with 171 (E), 171 (H) of the IPC against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e., A1 and A2 respectively.
4
6. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel assisting the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-State.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed the relevant sections of the IPC mentioned in the Chargesheet to submit that none of the offences mentioned therein have been made out. Senior Counsel further submits that with respect to an offence under section 188 of the IPC, section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') is pressed into service and requires a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their superior before a Court can take cognizance of offences related to the contempt of a public servants' lawful authority. It is also submitted that in the present case, the lawful order was passed by the Election Commission of India represented by its Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana State, who is the competent authority to register the written complaint and since, the Complaint and the Chargesheet herein have not been filed by an Officer whose order is alleged to have been violated, the Police could not have registered this case and investigated the crime. Senior Counsel also places the serious inconsistencies between the Chargesheet and the statement of the LW2 (PW1) regarding the amount seized from the petitioner No.1. It is also submitted that the mere 'assumption' by the Police that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was being used for bribing the voters, would not constitute an offence under sections 171(E) and 171(H) of the IPC. 5
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State relies on the statements of the eye witnesses (LWs.2-6) which corroborate the contents of the Complaint and the Chargesheet as well as on the proposition that the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial while exercising its powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C, since the Court's jurisdiction therein is limited to the determination as to whether there exists sufficient material against the accused, warranting a trial. Counsel submits that the seizure of cash while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) was in force as well as the confessions of both the A1 and A2 (petitioners) prove the mala fide intention of the petitioners and directly attract the penal provisions under the IPC thereby warranting a trial in C.C.No.6 of 2025.
9. I have considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties.
10. The petitioners seek quashing of the C.C.No.6 of 2025 which was filed on the basis of the offences recorded in the Chargesheet. The Chargesheet records the commission of offences under sections 188, 171(B) read with 171(E) and 171(H) of the IPC.
11. Section 188 of the IPC deals with 'Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.' The section requires intentional disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant who is lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing the concerned person to 6 abstain from doing a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in the possession of that person or under his management. It prescribes a punishment of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or a fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or both, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed. Further, a punishment of 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, is prescribed, if the disobedience causes or tends to cause any danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray. The Explanation to section 188 of the IPC clarifies that this provision does not necessitate that the offender should 'intend' to produce harm or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm and it is sufficient that he has knowledge of the order which he is disobeying and that such disobedience produces or is likely to produce harm. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offence under section 188 of the IPC are:
(i) There must be an order promulgated by a public servant.
(ii) The public servant must be legally empowered to promulgate such order.
(iii) The person disobeying such order must be aware of that order.7
(iv) The order must direct the person to abstain from doing a certain act or to take certain order with regard to certain property in the possession of that person or under his management.
(v) The person must disobey the order/direction.
(vi) The disobedience should cause or tend to cause obstruction,
annoyance or injury, or risk of all the aforesaid to any person lawfully employed. Or,
(vii) The disobedience should cause or tend to cause danger to human life, health or safety. Or,
(viii) The disobedience should cause or tend to cause a riot or affray.
12. In this regard, the Prosecution has not placed any order promulgated by a competent public servant and any disobedience on the part of the petitioners to such order. Neither the Complaint nor the Chargesheet refer to any obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of the aforesaid to any person lawfully employed; or any danger to human life, health or safety; or a consequential riot/affray which has taken place or could have taken place as a result of the action of the petitioners. Since the respondents have not placed any order promulgated by a competent public servant, the offence as envisaged by section 188 of the IPC i.e., of the petitioners being aware of such order and disobeying the same despite having knowledge, does not arise.
8
13. In essence, none of the ingredients of section 188 of the IPC have been made out for attracting the said offence and charging the petitioners with the same.
14. Section 171(B) of the IPC deals with 'Bribery'. Clause (1) describes the offence of 'bribery' to include situations where gratification is given 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 where gratification is accepted by a person for himself or for any other person as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right. Clause (2) explains the meaning of 'giving gratification' to refer to 'a person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification'. Clause (3) explains the meaning of 'accepting gratification' to refer to 'a person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification' and explains the meaning of 'accepting the gratification as a reward' to refer to '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'.
15. Section 171(E) of the IPC provides 'Punishment for bribery' to include imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. It contains an exception where 9 bribery by 'treating' (i.e., where gratification consists of food, drink, entertainment, or provision) is to be punished with fine only.
16. Section 171(H) deals with a situation where a person incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting/procuring the election of a candidate without the general or special authority in writing of the concerned candidate and punishes such conduct with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. It carves out an exception in cases where such unauthorized expenses do not exceed the amount of ten rupees by rendering legality to such payments if the written approval of the concerned candidate is obtained within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred.
17. The ingredients of section 171(B) of the IPC have to be fulfilled to attract an offence punishable under section 171(E) of the IPC: Sunil Kumar Ahuja Vs. State of Telangana 1. The amount which was allegedly found in the possession of the petitioner No.1 cannot lead to an automatic assumption that the amount was meant for the petitioner No.2, who is a political leader, to bribe the voters in the House of People Election, 2024. Admittedly, no person was actually bribed nor any money was accepted by any person for the purpose of voting for the petitioner No.2. For the 1 2023 SCC OnLine TS 30 10 said reasons, the offence under section 171(B) of the IPC is not made out and consequently, the question of prosecuting the petitioners for the offence of bribery punishable under section 171(E) of the IPC does not arise.
18. The facts as recorded in the Chargesheet simply state that the petitioner No.1 was found with an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the vehicle of the petitioner No.2 for the purpose of distributing the same to the voters of the Bhongir Parliamentary Constituency during the General Elections to House of People, 2024, wherein the petitioner No.2 was contesting as a candidate from the said constituency. The Chargesheet proceeds on the assumption that the amount was to be used for the purpose of bribing voters so as to make them cast their votes in favour of the petitioner No.2. The Chargesheet simply reproduces the statements of the witnesses, including that of PW.1, which forms a part of the records. The statement of PW.1 however assumes importance for several reasons.
19. First, in the Chief Examination conducted on 07.05.2025, the independent witness does not state that the money was being transported by the petitioner No.1 for the purpose of bribing voters in the Bhongir Parliamentary Constituency during the House of People Elections, 2024, to ensure the success of the petitioner No.2 in the Election. The witness simply states that the petitioner No.1/A1 was stopped while driving a car and on enquiry, the witness came to know that the car belongs to the 11 A2/the petitioner No.2, who was contesting the Parliamentary Elections, 2024, from the Bhongir Constituency as a representative of the BJP. Besides, there are two vital contradictions between the Chargesheet and the account of the independent witness/PW.1 as reflected from the Chief Examination of the PW.1. First, while the Chargesheet simply states that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was found in the car of the petitioner No.2, the deposition of PW.1 states that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- which was found in the car, comprised of rupees 100 notes. Second, the Chargesheet states that the amount of cash was being carried for the purpose of winning votes for the 'BRS Party by distribution of money to the voters' and to 'succeed Sri Kaleru Venkatesh as MLA'. This is contradictory to the rest of the contents of the Chargesheet itself which states that the cash was to be distributed among the voters for helping the petitioner No.2 to win the Elections on behalf of the BJP. The two contradictions, as stated above, are not insignificant but strike at the root of the matter, since the charges in the present matter have been framed under sections 171(B), (E), and (H) of the IPC, i.e., for the offence of 'bribery'. These contradictions also highlight the assumption made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad that the money would be used for inducing voters to vote in favour of the petitioner No.2, who is contesting from the BJP. It is also evident that the Chargesheet is filed solely on the basis of the confession of the A1/the petitioner No.1 which is untenable in law since the Chargesheet must 12 separately and clearly mention the role played by each of the accused persons (petitioners) with reference to the offences which they have been charged with. It is well settled that the Chargesheet must disclose the commission of an offence on the face of it and the Court in a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must ascertain whether the Chargesheet and the allegations therein establish the offences, prima facie against the accused persons. In the present case, the Chargesheet contains contradictions within itself and also as against the statement of the independent witness (PW.1) which shows complete non-application of mind.
20. Besides, section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. imposes a bar on the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC or of any abetment of or attempt to commit such offence or of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except on a written complaint of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the Criminal Courts from being wasted due to endless prosecutions. The provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and non-compliance with the same would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders: 13
C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu 2. Hence, the offence under section 188 which the petitioners have been charged with would be squarely covered within the bar provided in section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. as neither any order promulgated by a competent public servant and disobedience to such order nor a consequent written complaint by the concerned public servant, has been placed by the respondents-State in the instant case. The Court hence finds substance in the contention of the petitioners that the Complaint and the Chargesheet must be filed by an Officer whose order is violated and the Police cannot register or investigate the offence in the present case: Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi3. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution, while initiating action against the appellant, did not take recourse to the procedure prescribed under section 195 of the Cr.P.C. and hence, the prosecution of the appellant with regard to the commission of an offence under section 182 of the IPC was void ab initio.
21. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh 4, the Supreme Court laid down a Four-Step Test for determining the veracity of a prayer raised by an accused for quashing of criminal proceedings by invoking the power vested in the High Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The first step 2 (2010) 9 SCC 567 3 2017 (3) SCC 286 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 14 would be to assess whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable i.e., if the material is of sterling and impeccable quality; the second step would be to assess whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint; the third step would be to assess whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant and the fourth step is to assess whether the case proceeding for trial would result in an abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice.
22. The alleged disclosure of personal details on the part of the petitioner No.2 on 21.05.2024 cannot amount to a case fit for Trial since the Chargesheet merely records that the petitioner No.2 on interrogation, disclosed the particulars of his name and address while the investigation was in progress. The Chargesheet treats this as an 'oral confession' but the same is not accurate since the said disclosure can only be seen as the willingness of the petitioner No.2 to co-operate with the investigating authority and the disclosure also cannot be treated as a confession under the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
15
23. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 5 sets down the categories of cases wherein the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. either for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The cases cited by the respondents-State are as follows:
24. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh 6, the Supreme Court reiterated the cardinal principal of law that at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial as the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is only required to consider 'whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not'. It was noted that this is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges as the charges are required to be proved during the Trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. In the present case, neither the petitioners have raised any issue with respect to proving of the charges recorded in the Chargesheet nor has the Court come to any finding on the said issue. In Padi Kaushik Reddy v. State of Telangana 7, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5756 of 2025 also observed 5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 (2023) 18 SCC 399 7 2025: TSHC: 27356 16 on similar lines that the High Court cannot conduct a mini trial in exercise of its powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and further cannot consider the correctness/genuineness of the statements of the witnesses while dealing with an application under the said provision of law. In that case, the learned Single Judge refused to quash the FIR forming the subject matter of that case as serious allegations had been levelled against the petitioner therein and the investigation was still underway.
However, in the present matter, the investigation has been completed against the petitioners and a Chargesheet has also been filed pursuant thereto, hence there is no scope for the apprehension that the investigation would be scuttled if the proceedings are quashed. Further, the Court herein has also not delved into the aspect of genuineness of the witness statements.
25. The instant Criminal Petition on the one hand fulfills the situations/conditions outlined in the cases placed by the petitioners and on the other hand does not fit the requirements of the statutory provisions under which both the petitioners have been charged. The Criminal Petition also satisfies the Four-Step Test as laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra) for the quashing of criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2) should not be forced to face trial when the Chargesheet does not make out any offence under sections 171(B), 171(E), 171(H) and 188 of the IPC. 17
26. Criminal Petition No.7265 of 2025 is accordingly allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.6 of 2025 on the file of the First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, at Hyderabad in respect of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J Date: 25.10.2025 NDS/BMS 18 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7265 OF 2025 Date: 25.10.2025 NDS/BMS