Telangana High Court
Mr.Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 23 June, 2023
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2870 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.143 of 2022 pending on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad/ Special Court to try Offences having punishment less than three years relating to the elected MPs and MLAs for the State of Telangana, and quash the same.
2. Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The petitioner herein is Accused No.1 in the present C.C.No.143 of 2022. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 188 of IPC and Section 30 of Police Act. The allegations leveled against him are that he is the Founder and President of YSR Congress Party. On 26.04.2014 in the evening hours, the petitioner 2 held campaigning meeting at the place beside Saibaba Talkies in view of General Elections to be held on 30.04.2014. L.W.4/respondent No.2 herein along with L.Ws.1 to 3 was performing patrolling duty. At the time of attending to the meeting place, the petitioner along with other accused A.2 and A.3 performed a road show from Indira Chowk to meeting place without having any prior permission from the Election Commission of India and thus disobeyed the orders which are promulgated by the Election Commission of India. Therefore, the petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1, referring to the judgment dated 18.06.2021 in Crl.P.No.4556 of 2021 sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.143 of 2022. Vide the aforesaid judgment, this Court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.12 of 2018 against the petitioner therein of the offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC and also Section 30 of the Police Act. This Court also referred the principle laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of 3 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 District2 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3.
5. In N.T. Rama Rao (supra), and 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 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 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 4 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."
6. 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:-
".....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 5 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."
7. Referring to the said judgments and also on examination of the facts therein, this Court quashed the proceedings in Calendar Case therein.
8. In the present case also the allegation leveled against the petitioner./A.1 is that he has conducted road show without obtaining prior permission from the Election Commission of India. But, there is no mention in the charge sheet as to which orders that were disobeyed by the petitioner. In the present case, the complaint was filed by the L.W.4, the Sub Inspector of Police and he himself is the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.
6
9. Section - 188 of IPC deals with 'disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. According to it, 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 etc., 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. As discussed supra, in the entire charge sheet, there is no mention with regard to the orders that were promulgated by the Election Commission of India and therefore, the question of petitioner disobeying the same does not arise. Thus, the said ingredients are lacking in the charge sheet filed by the police. 7
10. As discussed supra, in the present case the complainant and the Investigating Officer is one and the same. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in the above said judgments in the light of the above said discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.143 of 2022 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad/Special Court to try Offences having punishment less than three years relating to the elected MPs and MLAs for the State of Telangana, against the petitioner herein/A.1 are hereby quashed.
Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN Date: 23.06.2023 Note: Issue C.C. forthwith b/o. vvr