Telangana High Court
Sri. Bandi Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 4 August, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7543 OF 2025
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. P. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2025 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases relating to M.Ps and MLAs, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are Accused Nos.1, 3 to 11 in the said C.C.No.32 of 2025. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are punishable under Sections 143 and 188 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. As per the complaint dated 15.11.2021 of 2nd respondent, the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein are that 1st petitioner along with the other petitioners on 15.11.2021 at 12 noon, without following guidelines issued by the State Government with regard to COVID-19, went to Arjalabavi IKP Centre, Nalgonda District and 2 examined the paddy, spoke to the farmers and conducted press meet. Thus, the petitioners have violated the Model of Code of Conduct.
4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of 2nd respondent as L.W.1, L.Ws.2 to 4 are constables and Sub Inspector of Police, Nalgonda Rural Police Station, L.W.5 is the photographer and also eye witness to the incident. On consideration of the said statements, the Investigating officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein. The same was taken on file vide C.C.No.35 of 2025. Petitioners filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.
5. In the said CC, the offences are under Sections 143 and 149 of IPC. Section 143 of IPC says that whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
6. Section 141 of IPC deals with unlawful assembly and it is extracted below:-
141. Unlawful assembly.--An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is--3
First.--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 Second.--To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.--To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.--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 he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth.--By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
7. To prove the said offences, there should be criminal force or resisting the execution of any law, or of any legal process by the petitioners. The contents of the complaint dated 15.11.2021 of 2nd respondent and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. lacks the ingredients of Sections 141 of IPC. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioners used criminal force or obstructed execution of any proceedings or of any legal process by the petitioners herein.
4
8. It is relevant to discuss Section 188 of IPC and the same is extracted below:-
"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 imprisonment 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.
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."5
9. It is relevant to refer the principle laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor1, Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District 2 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3, wherein the procedure to be followed in the cases involved with the offence under 188 of IPC.
10. In N.T. Rama Rao (supra) it is held as follows:-
6 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 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 1 Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 2 Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 3 (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 6 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 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 unsustainability, 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 (supra) relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao (supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), it was held as follows:-
7
".....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."
11. In order to convict any person for commission of offence punishable under Section - 188 IPC, the Court has to satisfy itself that the accused had not only violated the order promulgated by a public servant, but also the accused had actual knowledge of issuance of such order. The same is lacking in the present case.
12. In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 4, the Apex Court has also laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:-
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 "(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 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 accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." The said principle was also reiterated in subsequent judgments. 9
13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.32 of 2025 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs , Hyderabad are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1,3 to 11.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.
____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 04.08.2025 Vvr.