Telangana High Court
Dr. K.Laxman vs The State Of Telangana on 26 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7644 OF 2025
Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. S. Ganesh, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. E. Ganesh, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the
respondent-State.
ORDER:
1. The petitioner prays for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.80 of 2025 for the offences under sections 171(H) and 188 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs at Hyderabad.
2. The C.C. originates from a Complaint dated 14.05.2024 made by the de facto complainant to the Inspector of Police, Domalguda, Hyderabad. The Complaint relates to an incident on 10.05.2024 at 07:30 hours involving the petitioner along with a few other members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) entering Indira Park through the gate located near the Ramakrishna Matam while raising slogans including 'Jai BJP'. The Complaint also mentions that the petitioner interacted with morning walkers and campaigned for BJP (Political Party) by saying 'Vote for BJP' without any prior permission from the appropriate Officers. 2
3. A Chargesheet was filed against the petitioner on 14.05.2024 pursuant to FIR No.170 of 2023. The Chargesheet records the brief facts of the case. The facts recorded are a repetition of those in the Complaint and are as follows:
4. The Police received a written Complaint on 14.05.2024 at 20:00 hours from one Sri K. Janardhan stating that on 10.05.2024 at 07:30 hours, 'BJP leader' Sri Dr. K. Laxman (the petitioner) along with other members entered Indira Park raising slogans such as 'Jai BJP'. The petitioner interacted with morning walkers and campaigned for BJP by saying 'Vote for BJP' without taking any prior permission from the appropriate Officers. The Chargesheet further records the statements of witnesses and the evidence collected during the course of investigation including that of LW.2 who is a security guard at Indira Park and concludes that a prima facie case has been established against the petitioner/accused for committing offences punishable under sections 171(H) and 188 of the IPC.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State have made their respective submissions. The de facto complainant is not represented.
3
6. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the relevant provisions of the IPC to urge that the Complaint was lodged and the Chargesheet was filed for mala fide reasons and that the Criminal Case should be quashed since none of the offences mentioned in the Chargesheet have been made out.
7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State relies on the Complaint and urges that a detailed enquiry would be required to establish the facts stated in the Complaint as well as in the Chargesheet. The APP also relies on the admission of the petitioner as recorded in the Chargesheet which records that the petitioner voluntarily came to the Police Station at Domalguda on 22.05.2024, admitted his guilt with regard to the offence and assured his co-operation with the investigating authority before LW.6, Sub-Inspector of Police, Domalguda P.S.
8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent-State.
9. C.C.No.80 of 2025 has been filed against the petitioner on the basis of the offences under sections 171(H) and 188 of the IPC. Section 171(H) of the IPC deals with the offence of 'Illegal payments 4 in connection with an election' and elaborates that incurring or authorising expenses on account of holding any public meeting or similar activity for promoting/procuring the election of a candidate, without the general or special authority in writing of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. Section 171(H) of the IPC contemplates illegal payment in connection with an election or promoting a candidate.
10. In the present case, this Court fails to see how section 171(H) of the IPC would apply herein as the incident recorded in the Chargesheet admittedly relates to the petitioner entering Indira Park, raising slogans and campaigning in favour of a Political Party by interacting with morning walkers. There is no allegation either in the Complaint or in the Chargesheet in respect of incurring or authorising expenses on account of any public meeting, advertisement, circular or publication for the purpose of promoting/procuring the election of any candidate in absence of written authority of such candidate as required under section 171(H) of the IPC. There is also no whisper of any payment, illegal or otherwise, in respect of the petitioner in connection with an election. Hence, the Chargesheet fails to make out any case for an offence under section 171(H) of the IPC.
5
11. Section 188 of the IPC relates to 'Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant'. The section elaborates that whoever knowingly disobeys 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 shall be punished with simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or with 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 and 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 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.
12. Hence, section 188 of the IPC consists of several parts.
(i) There must be an order duly promulgated by a public servant.
(ii) The person disobeying such order must be aware of that order.6
(iii) The order must direct the person to abstain from a certain act or to accept an order with regard to property in his possession.
(iv) The person must disobey such direction.
(v) The disobedience should cause or tend to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of all the aforesaid to any person lawfully employed where punishment of simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or both may be awarded or;
(vi) The disobedience should cause or tend to cause danger to human life, health or safety or a resulting riot or affray where punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or which may extend to 1000 Rs. fine or both may be awarded.
13. The remote possibility of injury to a person by conducting a public meeting was noted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P. 1
14. Admittedly, there is no order on record which has been promulgated by a competent public servant and consequently any 1 Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009 7 disobedience on the part of the petitioner to such order is not possible. There is also no record in the Complaint or in the Chargesheet of any danger to human life, health or safety or a resulting riot or affray which has taken place or any risk of the aforesaid taking place due to the actions of the petitioner. In essence, none of the ingredients of section 188 of the IPC has been fulfilled in the present case. The APP appearing for the respondent- State has not placed any such order of a competent public servant which was or could have been disobeyed by the petitioner for attracting the offence under section 188 of the IPC.
15. It is also relevant that the alleged confession made by the petitioner as recorded in the Chargesheet is also not relevant since the petitioner only expressed his willingness to co-operate with the investigating authority. In fact, it is not clear as to how the said willingness can be treated as a confession under the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to support the continuation of the Criminal Case.
16. State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 2 enumerated the categories of cases wherein the Court can exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of The Code of Criminal 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Point 4 in Para 102 of the Judgment includes a case where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence wherein no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
17. Section 155 of the Cr.P.C. relates to 'Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases'. Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. prohibits a Police Officer from investigating a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. The Court may also add that the contents of the Chargesheet raise the possibility of the Criminal proceeding having been filed with malice. The basis of filing such proceedings appears to be the political rivalry between two political groups in the State. Malicious and mala fide proceedings warranting section 482 Cr.P.C. intervention also forms part of Para 102 Point-7 of Bhajanlal's case (supra).
18. The APP has not addressed the Court on the malice or mala fide argument made on behalf of the petitioner. The view of the Court with regard to the criminal proceeding being actuated by 9 mala fides is strengthened by the attending facts and circumstances.
19. In conclusion, the Chargesheet does not disclose commission of any offence under sections 171(H) and 188 of the IPC. The brief facts record an incident which does not fulfil the requirements of the aforesaid sections. Inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised where the allegations in the Chargesheet do not constitute the offence and there is no evidence brought on record to support the allegations contained in the Chargesheet.
20. The instant Criminal Petition also fulfils the four-step test for ascertaining the veracity of the prayer for quashing under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as recently held by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another 3. This is hence a fit case where the inherent power should be exercised.
21. This Court is of the firm view that the petitioner/accused should not be forced to face trial when the Chargesheet does not make out any offence under the provisions of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3 SLP (CRL.) NO.11642/201910
22. Criminal Petition No.7644 of 2025 is accordingly allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.80 of 2025 for the offences under sections 171(H) and 188 of the IPC in respect of the petitioner/accused on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of cases relating to MPs and MLAs at Hyderabad.
All connected applications are disposed of. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J 26th September, 2025.
NDS 11 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7644 OF 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 NDS