Telangana High Court
Muthyala Sunil Kumar Sunil Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 27 February, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2816 of 2025
ORDER:
Petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5, in
C.C.No.266 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class (Pro & Exc.) Nizamabad, registered for the offences under Sections
188, 290 and 341 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 125 of Representation of Police
Act, are seeking to quash the proceedings against them.
2. Heard Mr. P.Subash, learned counsel for petitioners and
Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 27.11.2023, the Complainant
received credible information about people burning an effigy of Sri. Harish
Rao, Hon’ble Minister of Health and Finance, at Bada Bheemgal Chowrasta
in Bheemgal, without prior permission from the Election Commission. The
Complainant and his team went to the location and found Congress Party
members obstructing public vehicles, shouting slogans like “Congress
Zindabad” and “Harish Rao Down Down” while burning the effigy. This
action violated the election code and provoked clashes between parties.
Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.197 of 2023 was
registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5. After completion of
2
investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and the case
was numbered as C.C. No. 266 of 2024 for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that though the petitioners are
innocent of the offences alleged against them, they have been falsely
implicated in the case. The petitioners have not violated any rules and model
of conduct relating to elections. He further submits that Section 195(1)(a)(1) of
Cr.P.C. bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable
under Section 188 of IPC, unless there is a written complaint by public servant
concerned for contempt/violation of his lawful orders. Hence, he prayed to
quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the petitioners have also been charged with the offences other than 188 of
IPC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the
aforesaid offences against the petitioners, basing on the final report filed by
the Police, as such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance
taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one without authority of
Law. He further submitted that the truth or otherwise of the allegations
levelled against the petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fledged
trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. For the sake of convenience, Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of
Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.
3
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 to tender 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.
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants,
for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents
given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both
inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the
complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other
public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate…
(b)(i)of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such
offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, or
(ii)of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section
471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is
alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the
abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii).
7. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is
evident that Section 195(1)(a)(1) of Cr.P.C. bars the Court from taking
cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC, unless there
4
is a written complaint by public servant concerned for contempt/violation of his
lawful orders. In the present case, basing on the complaint lodged by the 2nd
respondent-de facto complainant, who is not a competent person, present
crime was registered and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.
Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under Section
188 of IPC are liable to be quashed.
8. In the judgment of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy 1, at paragraph
No.8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
” We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold
that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for
which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of
a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not
possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the
offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should be upheld”.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. Insofar as other offences i.e., Sections 290, 341 r/w 34 of IPC and
Section 125 of Representation of People Act are concerned, as per the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemareddy‘s case (supra), it is clear
that if the offences formed part of the same transaction of the offences
contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., it is not possible to split up and
hold the prosecution of the petitioners. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking
cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners stands vitiated
1
AIR 1981 SC 1417
5
and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts
to abuse of process of law.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed and
the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.266 of
2024 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Pro &
Exc.), Nizamabad, are hereby quashed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 27.02.2025
lk
[ad_1]
Source link