Telangana High Court
Kova Laxman vs State Of Telangana on 6 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7624 OF 2025
DATE: 06.03.2026
Between:
Kova Laxman,
S/o. Ramulu.
...Petitioner
AND
State of Telangana,
Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Telangana and Another.
...Respondents
Mr. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Vimal Varma Vasi
Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State..
ORDER:
1. The petitioner prays for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.406 of 2023 arising out of Crime No.183 of 2019 for the offences punishable under sections 188, 143, 341 read with section 149 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Cases Under Prohibition Act (Excise Court)-cum-Special Court to Try Offences Having Punishment Less Than 3 Years Relating to the 2 Cases Filed Against Elected MPs and MLAs at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad ("Trial Court"),
2. The petitioner is the accused No.1 in the Criminal Case.
3. The Criminal Case is based on a Complaint dated 18.10.2019 made by the de facto complainant, Mr. P. Praveen Kumar, Deputy Executive Engineer, PR Huzurnagar and MCC Team Leader of Palakaveedu Mandal, alleging that leaders belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party ("BJP"), conducted a Road Show at Janapahad Village on 15.10.2019 at 04:59 P.M. in connection with the Bye-Election to the Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency, which led to a traffic blockage for 51 minutes. Five BJP leaders (including the petitioner herein) arrayed as the accused Nos.1 to 5 in the Criminal Case, participated in the Road Show, which concluded at 05:50 P.M. As a result, the road remained congested for 51 minutes, causing an obstruction to the free flow of traffic.
4. On the basis of the Complaint dated 18.10.2019, Crime No.183 of 2019 was registered under sections 188, 143, 341 read with section 149 of the IPC.
3
5. The facts alleged in the complaint are set out in detail in the Chargesheet dated 11.07.2022. The petitioner is arrayed as the accused No.1 in the Chargesheet.
6. The Chargesheet states that upon service of notice under sections 91 and 160 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), the LW-1/Pulikanti Praveen Kumar, Deputy Executive Engineer, PR Huzurnagar and MCC Team Leader of Palakaveedu Mandal, came to the Police Station on 12.06.2022 and stated that photographic and videographic evidence relating to the offence was not available. It is further stated that the LW- 1 also failed to produce the appointment order appointing him as the MCC Team In-charge for the Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency Bye-Election, 2019. The Chargesheet also states that, as per the orders of the Election Commission, during the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, political parties must obtain prior permission from the Returning Officer for the vehicles participating in a Road Show and that the petitioner/accused No.1 and the accused Nos.2 to 5 conducted the Road Show at Janapahad Village by violating the Model Code of Conduct.
4
7. The Chargesheet concludes with a prayer to the Court to issue summons to the accused persons and to punish them after Trial.
8. We have heard the respective contentions of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel representing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State. The respondent No.2/the de facto complainant is not represented.
9. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places the relevant facts of the case and elaborates on the implications of the IPC provisions under which the petitioner has been charged. Senior Counsel submits that neither the Complaint nor the Chargesheet makes out any of the offences stated therein and that the Criminal Case should hence be quashed.
10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that the investigation revealed that the petitioner along with the accused Nos.2 to 5 had conducted and participated in the Road Show held at Janapahad Village on 15.10.2019 from 16:59 hours to 17:50 hours. The APP further submits that the petitioner violated the Model Code of Conduct and caused a traffic jam lasting about 51 minutes. The APP 5 relies on the evidence given by witnesses to corroborate that public transport was disrupted due to the Road Show conducted by the petitioner.
11. The statements of witnesses recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakaveedu Police Station, who also conducted a detailed enquiry into the case, were placed before the Court.
12. The Court proposes to deal with each of the individual offences listed in the Chargesheet separately, as set out below.
13. Section 188 of the IPC is concerned with 'Disobedience to Order Duly Promulgated by Public Servant' and punishes whoever, knowingly, disobeys a direction contained in an order promulgated by a competent public servant, directing the person to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with regard to certain property in his possession or under his management. Punishment 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, is provided in case such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed. Further, punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 6 extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, is provided in case such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray.
14. Section 188 of the IPC can be broken down to at least six components which are as follows;
(i) There must be an order duly promulgated by a public servant.
(ii) A person disobeying such an order must have knowledge of the order.
(iii) The order must direct that the person abstain from a certain act, or that the person take certain order with regard to property in his possession or under his management.
(iv) The person must disobey such a direction, resulting in either of the two consequences listed below -
(a) The disobedience should cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of all the aforesaid to any person lawfully employed which is 7 punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
(b) In the alternative, the disobedience should cause or tend to cause danger to human life, health or safety or a resulting riot or affray, which is punishable 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.
15. In the present case, the petitioner and the other accused persons conducted the Road Show on 15.10.2019 pursuant to a "Permission for Rally/Procession" dated 13.10.2019, granted by the Returning Officer, 89-Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency and District Revenue Officer, Suryapet, upon an application made for such permission by the accused No.6 on behalf of the accused No.4, which forms part of the Counter filed by the respondent-State. The Permission dated 13.10.2019 specifies the designated places for conducting the Rally and Road Show, providing distinct time slots for each location, with the total duration of the entire Procession allotted from 09:30 A.M. to 08:00 P.M. on 15.10.2019. The Permission was accorded for 150 8 supporters, subject to thirteen conditions listed therein, including, that in the event of any aggravation of the law and order situation due to the conduct of the Rally/Procession, the applicant/organizer would be held responsible and that violation of any of the first twelve conditions stated in the Permission, would result in the Permission being deemed withdrawn and proceedings being instituted against the applicant/organizer for violation of the Model Code of Conduct.
16. The charge under section 188 of the IPC is virtually obliterated in light of the Permission granted by the competent authority for the Rally and Road Show on 13.10.2019. It is undisputed that the respondent-State has not been able to produce any order promulgated by a competent public servant, nor demonstrate disobedience on the part of the petitioner to such an order. Neither the Complaint nor the Chargesheet contains any reference 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 resulting riot or affray that the Procession/Road Show conducted by the petitioner, caused or was likely to cause.
9
17. Thus, the essential ingredients of section 188 of the IPC have not been fulfilled. The State has also failed to make out any case of the petitioner disobeying any order passed by a competent public servant.
18. Moreover, 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.
19. The provisions of section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory. Non-compliance with section 195 would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders, as held in C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1.
20. Section 143 of the IPC prescribes "Punishment" in the form of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, for being a member of an unlawful assembly. An "Unlawful Assembly" has been defined in section 141 of the IPC as an assembly of five or 1 2010 (9) SCC 567 10 more persons, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:
(i) To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the 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
(ii) To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(iii) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
(iv) 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 that person is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(v) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not 11 legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
21. The presence of any one of the aforesaid five ingredients is required to constitute the 'common object' necessary for forming an unlawful assembly under section 141 of the IPC. In the present case, although, the Chargesheet mentions the five accused persons as allegedly having formed the unlawful assembly on the day of the alleged incident, the description in the Chargesheet only states that the five accused persons (including the petitioner) "participated in the Road Show", leading to a traffic jam and obstruction to the free flow of traffic for 51 minutes. The Chargesheet lacks any other specific details as to the number of persons forming the unlawful assembly. The charge of unlawful assembly is, in any event, considerably diluted, if not obliterated, by the Permission granted on 13.10.2019 by the Returning Officer, 89-Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency and District Revenue Officer, Suryapet, for conducting the said rally on 15.10.2019 from 9:30 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for "150 members/supporters".
22. The definition of unlawful assembly under section 141 of the IPC also makes it clear that the persons composing the 12 assembly must share a common object, which may be to overawe by criminal force, or its show, the Central or any State Government, Parliament, or State Legislature, or any public servant in the exercise of lawful power; to commit mischief, criminal trespass, or any other offence; to resist the execution of any law or legal process; by means of criminal force, or its show, to take or obtain possession of any property, deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, use of water, or other incorporeal right, or enforce any right or supposed right; or to compel any person, by criminal force, or its show, to do something which that person is not legally bound to do, or omit what he/she is legally entitled to do.
23. None of the aforesaid requirements have been made out in the present case. Hence, the applicability of section 143 of the IPC, i.e., punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly, does not arise in the present case.
24. Section 341 of the IPC provides for "Punishment for Wrongful Restraint" 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.
13
25. Section 339 of the IPC defines "Wrongful Restraint" as the voluntary act of obstructing any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed.
26. Section 339 also carves out an exception in respect of the obstruction of a private way over land or water, which a person in good faith believes himself/herself to have a lawful right to obstruct. Any act falling within the aforesaid exception would hence, not amount to wrongful restraint.
27. The Complaint dated 18.10.2019, which forms the basis of the Chargesheet, lacks the essential requirements for wrongful restraint as defined under section 339 of the IPC, as it simply states that the petitioner had participated in a Road Show along with others on 15.10.2019 at 04:59 P.M., and that the vehicles used for the Road Show were not the campaign vehicles that had been approved by the Returning Officer. The Complaint also states that the aforesaid alleged act of the petitioner, disrupted traffic for 51 minutes. The basis of the Complaint appears to be that the petitioner used certain campaign vehicles without the approval of the Returning Officer, while participating in the Road Show. There is no allegation of any obstruction voluntarily 14 imposed upon any person to prevent him/her from moving in a particular direction in which he/she has a right to proceed.
28. In fact, the exact words used in the Chargesheet are testimony to the lack of particulars with regard to the offence of wrongful restraint as no witnesses who were restricted in any manner from proceeding in any direction, were examined to infer commission of the offence punishable under section 341 of IPC.
29. As stated above, the Permission granted for the Road Show on a specific date and within designated localities and distinct time slots, strips both the Complaint and the Chargesheet of their substance. In any event, it is inexplicable as to how persons travelling on an open road can be restrained, in the manner defined under section 339 of the IPC, in cases of traffic congestion.
30. Section 149 of the IPC stipulates that an offence committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such offence as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object would render every member of that unlawful assembly at the time of the commission of that offence, to be guilty of that offence. In other words, the provision 15 embodies the principle of vicarious liability of all the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. In order to attract section 149 of the IPC, it must be shown that the incriminating act was committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, or that the members of the assembly knew such offence to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
31. In the present case, as already discussed earlier, the mere act of participating in a Road Show, whether by the five accused persons or otherwise, cannot be termed as forming an unlawful assembly, in any manner, since the Returning Officer, 89- Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency and District Revenue Officer, Suryapet, had granted permission for the Rally/Road Show to be conducted on 15.10.2019. There are no averments in the Complaint that the petitioner violated any of the thirteen conditions listed in the Permission for conducting the Road Show. Further, since no offence has been committed by the members participating in the Road Show, the charge under section 149 of the IPC fails.
32. The statements of witnesses forming part of the record reflect that all the statements are virtually identical with regard 16 to the traffic flow being disrupted for 51 minutes and the Road Show at Janapahad Village, concluding at 5:50 P.M. These statements do not satisfy the statutory requirements under the four provisions of the IPC that the petitioner has been charged with.
33. An accused should not be compelled to face trial where the Chargesheet fails to disclose the commission of an offence, on the face of it. The Court should ascertain whether the allegations prima facie establish the offences under which the accused has been charged. Vague allegations would not justify requiring a person to stand Trial.
34. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C., or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
35. In Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2, the Supreme Court outlined a four-step test for quashing criminal proceedings, in exercise of the power vested in the High Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947 17
36. The four steps laid down are as follows:
(i) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable;
(ii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused;
(iii) 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;
(iv) Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of the process of the Court, and would not serve the ends of justice.
37. After hearing the competing submissions, this Court is of the firm view that the present case satisfies the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), since none of the contentions raised by the petitioner have been refuted or denied by the State respondent.
18
38. The State respondent cannot take a different view from that taken by its own Constituency Officer i.e., the Returning Officer, 89-Huzurnagar Assembly Constituency & District Revenue Officer, Suryapet, who granted permission on 13.10.2019 for conducting the Procession/Road Show. It is also significant that the petitioner has been relieved of the rigours of Trial in other Criminal Cases in Crl.P.Nos.7644, 7619 and 7265 of 2025.
39. Therefore, in conclusion, this Court holds that the Chargesheet, on the face of it, does not disclose the commission of any of the offences under sections 188, 143, 341 read with section 149 of the IPC.
40. The inherent powers of the Court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised where the allegations in the Chargesheet do not prima facie constitute an offence and where no evidence has been brought on record to support the allegations contained in the Chargesheet. This is hence, a fit case for the exercise of the inherent powers of the Court.
41. The petitioner/accused No.1 should not be forced to face Trial, in light of the reasons stated above.
19
42. Crl.P.No.7624 of 2025 is accordingly allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.406 of 2023 for the offences under sections 188, 143, 341 read with section 149 of the IPC in respect of the petitioner/accused No.1, on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Cases Under Prohibition Act (Excise Court)-cum-Special Court to Try Offences Having Punishment Less Than 3 Years Relating to the Cases Filed Against Elected MPs and MLAs at Manoranjan Complex, Hyderabad,
43. All connected applications are disposed of. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J DATE: 06.03.2026 NDS