Telangana High Court
Gaddam Prasad Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 30 December, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16172 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. H. Prahalad 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 (BNSS), 2023 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.281 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Excise Cases, Manoranjan Compled, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner herein is the Accused No.4 in the aforesaid case. The offence alleged against him is under Section 188 of IPC.
4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Vikarabad Police Station, a case in Crime No.69 of 2019 was registered for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner. The same was taken in file vide C.C.No.281 of 2022.
2
KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024
5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are that respondent No.2, while he was discharging his duties as an Election Flying Squad Team Shift-1, Team-1, Vikarabad, on 12.03.2019 at 14.00 hours, the petitioner herein and his associates are performing Hunger Strike in an open place opposite to RDO Office, Vikarabad, without permission, and thereby violated the Model Code of Conduct of Election. Therefore, he lodged the report with the Police, Vikarabad Police Station.
6. To prove the said allegations, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1 and the eye- witnesses as LWs.2 to 4, police personnel and videographer, respectively in the presence of panch witnesses i.e., LWs.5 and 6. On consideration of entire evidence, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the contents of charge sheet and statements of witnesses i.e., LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences.
8. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section
- 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by 3 KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024 public servant and it is relevant to extract the same and accordingly the same is extracted hereunder:
"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 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.4
KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024 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."
9. 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 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 1 . Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 5 KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024 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 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 6 KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024 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."
10. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari 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 2 . Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 3 . (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 7 KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024 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.
11. 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 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 8 KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024 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 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.9
KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024 (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 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.
12. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 4, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
4 . AIR 2021 SC 931 10 KL,J Crl.P. No.16172 of 2024
13. The Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of Cr.P.C. Further, in the charge sheet, there is reference to the petitioner 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 4 lack the ingredients of Sections - 188 of IPC. Therefore, the proceedings for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the present Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.281 of 2022 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Excise Cases, Manoranjan Compled, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC against the petitioner herein - accused No.4.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J December 30, 2024 PN