Telangana High Court
Vaddiraju Ravichandra vs The State Of Telangana on 12 December, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11245 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner 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, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.632 of 2019 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.
3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the said case. The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 341, 290 & 188 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 123 (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'R.P. Act').
4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 - Assistant Engineer, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Inthezargunj Police Station registered a case in Crime No.416 of 2018 against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. As per the complaint of respondent No.2, dated 30.11.2018, the allegations 2 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 levelled against the petitioner and others are that while he was discharging election duty in the capacity of In-charge of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) on 30.11.2018, the petitioner along with his supporters gathered at Bazar Masjid on the road without any permission. Then he along with his subordinates reached there and seen the petitioner and some others conducting the election campaign as he was contesting candidate from Congress Party and making appeals. At the same time, Warangal East TRS candidate, Mr. N. Narender along with his supporters is also campaigning. Supporters of both the parties are making appeals about their parties and thereby created a tense atmosphere. Their acts also caused obstruction of general public and traffic on the road.
5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW.1, eye- witnesses as LWs.2 to 5, LWs.6 and 7 are panch witnesses and LWs.8 and 9 are the Investigating Officers. LWs.1 to 5 in their statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. specifically stated that on 30.011.2018, the petitioner herein and others conducted rally without obtaining permission from the Returning Officer which is in violation of MCC. The petitioner herein is the 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 contesting candidate from Warangal East Constituency. Thus, the petitioner and others obstructed the public and traffic. On consideration of the said statements only, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.
6. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the contents of charge sheet and statements of witnesses recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against him.
7. Therefore, it is relevant to extract Section - 188 of IPC and the same is extracted:
"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 4 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 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. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor 1 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 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 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 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 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."
9. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 District 2 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.
10. 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 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 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 9 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(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 10 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.
11. 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 to 5 lack the ingredients of Sections - 188 of IPC. The proceedings in the said C.C. for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed.
12. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioner and 3 others. Though respondent No.2 in his complaint dated 30.11.2018 stated that the petitioner and 3 others and his associates/supporters conducted rally in violation of the MCC, the Investigating Officer did not conduct any investigation with regard to other people. He has not 11 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 collected CCTV Footage. However, he has filed charge sheet against the petitioner only.
13. As far as offence under Section - 149 of the IPC is concerned, Section - 141 of IPC deals with definition of 'unlawful assembly', and it says that an assembly of five or more persons is designated as 'unlawful assembly', if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is to overawe by criminal force etc. Section - 149 of IPC says that every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. Therefore, even, as per the charge sheet there are only four (04) accused. The Investigating Officer did not conduct any investigation with regard to other people other than the four people. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against the petitioner for the offence under Section - 149 of IPC is also an abuse of process of law and, as such, the same are liable to be quashed. 12
KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024
14. As far as offence under Section - 341 of IPC is concerned, it deals with 'punishment for wrongful restraint' and it says that 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. Perusal of record would reveal that none of the witnesses spoke about wrongful restraint of respondent No.2 including LWs.2 to 5 by the petitioner. Therefore, contents of charge sheet, complaint of respondent No.2 and the statements of LWs.1 to 5 lack the ingredients of Section - 341 of IPC. Thus, continuation of the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against the petitioner for the offence under Section - 341 of IPC is also an abuse of process of law and, as such, the same are liable to be quashed.
16. Section - 123 of R.P. Act deals with 'corrupt practices' and sub-section (1) says regarding 'bribery'. In view of the same, it is relevant to extract and the same is extracted as under:
"123. Corrupt practices.-13
KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 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;
the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether as a motive or a reward--
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being, a candidate; or
(b)by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.
14
KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 Explanation.--
For the purposes of this clause the term "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in Section 78.
(2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx...."
17. Perusal of statements of LWs.1 to 5 would reveal that they have not stated about making of false statement by the petitioner in connection with election and the contents of the said statements lack the ingredients of Section - 123 (1) of R.P. Act. Therefore, continuation of proceedings for the said offence is also nothing but an abuse of process of law. As such, the proceedings for the said offence are liable to be quashed.
18. As far as offence under Section - 290 of IPC is concerned, Section - 268 of IPC deals with 'public nuisance', whereas, Section - 290 of IPC deals with 'punishment for public' and it says that whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not 15 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 otherwise punishable by the Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
19. As discussed above, LWs.1 to 5 specifically stated that the petitioner and other accused and others conducted rally without obtaining permission from the Returning Officer of the subject constituency and thus they have violated the MCC. They have obstructed free flow of public and traffic. Therefore, it amounts to public nuisance in terms of Section - 268 of IPC.
20. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sathyan v. State of Kerala 4 to say that the statements of police officials including LWs.1 to 3 cannot be discarded just because they are Police Officers.
21. As discussed above, prima facie, contents of charge sheet, complaint dated 30.11.2018 and statements of LWs.1 to 5 constitute an offence under Section - 290 of IPC. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that even opponent candidate i.e., Mr. Nannapuneni Narender also came to the said Mosque along with his followers without any permission, even then, the Investigating 4 . 2023 INSC 703 16 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 Officer did not conduct any investigation on the said aspect etc., the said aspects are defences which the petitioner has to take before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. In a petition filed under Section - 528 of BNSS, this Court cannot analyze the evidence and also the correctness of statements, and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial.
22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Criminal Petition is allowed in part quashing the proceedings in C.C. No.632 of 2019 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, against the petitioners herein - accused No.1 for the offences under Sections - 341 & 188 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 123 (1) of the R.P. Act alone. The criminal petition to quash the proceedings for the offence under Section - 290 of IPC is dismissed.
23. At this stage, Mr. D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel, would submit that the petitioner is the Member of Rajya Sabha at present and his presence may be dispensed with. Considering the said submission, the presence of the petitioner in C.C. No.632 of 2019 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First 17 KL,J Crl.P. No.11245 of 2024 Class, Warangal, is dispensed with. However, he shall appear before the said Court as and when his presence is required.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 12th December, 2024 Mgr