Telangana High Court
Vanathadupula Laxman vs The State Of Telangana on 24 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8227 OF 2022
ORDER:
This criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.558 of 2019 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate (PCR) at Karimanagar for the offence under Sections 171-E, 188 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for brevity).
2. Heard Sri V.Aravind, learned counsel, representing Sri Sridhar Chikyala, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the complaint and the charge sheet there are no allegations against them to attract ingredients for the offences under Section 171-E, 188 of IPC. He further submitted that the petitioners were not present at the scene of offence. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no abetment and there is no gratification by the petitioners to any person including voter with the object of inducing him to exercise any electoral vote in favor of anybody. The said aspects were not 2 JSR, J Crlp_8227_2022 considered by the Investigating Officer. He did not examine any voter to prove the offence under Section 171B of IPC i.e., Bribery. He further submits that basing on the statement of respondent No.2 only the Investigation Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners. The petitioners have not violated any orders issued by the election authorities. The Investigating Officer and the learned Magistrate without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' for brevity) filed charge sheet while taking cognizance for the above said offence under Section 188 of IPC against the petitioners.
3.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.152 and 5696 of 2025 dated 18.08.2025.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have committed grave offence and the Investigation Officer after following the due procedure filed final report. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not, the same has to be revealed after full fledged trial and at this stage petitioners are not entitled to seek quash of proceedings.
3 JSR, J Crlp_8227_2022
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that basing on the complaint of respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime No.25 of 2019 is registered for the offence under Section 170-E and 188 of IPC. The Investigation Officer filed final report basing on the submissions of LW1 to LW5 who are panch witnesses. The Investigating Officer has not examined any voter to prove the offence under Section 171B of IPC. In respect of similar allegations this Court in Crl.P.No.152 and 5696 of 2025 quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.7169 of 2024 for the offence under Section 171B Read with 171E and 188 Read with 109 of IPC leveled against the accused therein. This Court after taking into consideration the principle laid down in Thota Chandra Sekhar Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1 and also in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 2 quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.7169 of 2024. In this Case also very similar allegations are leveled against the petitioner and the ingredients under Section 171E and 188 E of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner.
6. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and 1 Crlp.No.15248 of 2016, dated 26.10.2016 2 (1992) Supp.1 SCC 335 4 JSR, J Crlp_8227_2022 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 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
5 JSR, J Crlp_8227_2022 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 reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions.
7. For the foregoing reasons as well as the orders passed by this Court in Crlp.No.152 and 5696 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025 and also the principle laid down in Bhajan Lal supra, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 171-E, 188 of 6 JSR, J Crlp_8227_2022 IPC is clear abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, quashed.
8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 24.11.2025 PSW