Telangana High Court
K.Chandrashekar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 3 April, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6741 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for
petitioner/Accused No.15 and Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned
counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), to quash the proceedings
against petitioner/A.15 in C.C.No.393 of 2023 on the file of
the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class
for Excise Cases, at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally,
Hyderabad.
3. Petitioner herein is A.15 in the aforesaid C.C. The
offences alleged against him are under Sections 147, 117, 151,
188, 341, 353 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; Section
3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984;
Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, and
2 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
Sections 145, 147, 174(a), 150(b) & (e) of the Railways Act,
1989.
4. Sri A. Adinarayana, de facto complainant, is impleaded
as 2nd respondent in this Criminal Petition vide order dated
02.04.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025. He lodged a complaint dated
15.10.2011 before Government Railway Police, Secunderabad
Police Station, against petitioner/A.15 and others alleging that
in view of rail roko call given by petitioner/A.15, President of
Telangana Political JAC, and A.16, Political JAC for
formation of separate State of Telangana, on 15.10.2011 at
6:00 hours, Telangana Jagruthi President along with her 40
followers came to the railway track and stopped the train
engine which was coming from Secunderabad side. They sat
on the railway track and gave slogans and caused
inconvenience to the trains and also obstructed the duties of
railway employees. Without obtaining prior permission, they
all sat on railway track and threatened that if they were not
allowed to sit on railway track, they will pelt the stones on
police. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime
3 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
No.432 of 2011 was registered on the file of Secunderabad
Police Station, against petitioner/A.15 and others for the
aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the police filed charge sheet
against petitioner/A.15 and others in the Court of
II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, Secunderabad, for
the aforesaid offences.
5. In charge sheet, it is stated that A.1 to A.14 pleaded
guilty and A.15 and A.16 were absconding. The said charge
sheet was filed on 01.02.2013. Cognizance was taken on
01.02.2013 itself. The case against petitioner/A.15 was split up
and C.C.No.393 of 2023 was assigned. Thereafter, the said
C.C. was transferred to the Court of learned Special Judicial
Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, at Manoranjan
Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.
6. Perusal of record would reveal that in the complaint
lodged by 2nd respondent, the only allegation levelled against
petitioner/A.15 is that rail roko call was given by Telangana
Political JAC under the leadership of petitioner, President of
4 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
TRS Party. Except that, there is no other allegation levelled
against petitioner/A.15.
7. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer
recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as L.W.1,
eyewitnesses as L.Ws.2 to 10 and panch witnesses as L.Ws.11
and 12. However, none of the aforesaid witnesses spoke about
the role played by petitioner/A.15 in commission of aforesaid
offences. All of them in one voice stated that political JAC
under the leadership of petitioner/A.15 gave a call for rail roko
from 15.10.2011 to 17.10.2011 for formation of Telangana
State. According to them, rail roko programme was conducted
on 15.10.2011 at 6:00 a.m. under the leadership of
petitioner/A.15. Except that there is no other allegation
levelled against petitioner/A.15.
8. As discussed supra, on consideration of the statements of
aforesaid witnesses, the police laid charge sheet against
petitioner/A.15 and others for the aforesaid offences.
5 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
9. In view of the above, it is apt to note that Section 188 of
IPC deals with ‘disobedience to order duly promulgated by a
public servant’ and the same is extracted as under:
“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.”
6 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
10. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State
of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor1, while dealing with the
offences under Sections 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned
Single Judge of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held
as under:
“5) 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
1
. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009
7 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
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 un-sustainability,
the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st
accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal
Petition.”
11. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari
District 2, relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama
Rao (supra) and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble
2
. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016
8 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, more
particularly, 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, the learned Single Judge of
High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the
C.C. mentioned therein by exercising power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. It is 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.
12. In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Apex Court cautioned that
power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and
3
. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
9 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare 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
complaint or in FIR. In the said judgment, the Apex Court laid
down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same read 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
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
10 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
(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 Apex Court in a catena
of decisions.
13. As discussed supra, in the present case, the contents of
complaint dated 15.10.2011 lodged by 2nd respondent and the
statements of aforesaid witnesses recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. lack the ingredients of aforesaid offences. Therefore,
continuation of proceedings against petitioner/A.15 in the
aforesaid C.C. is an abuse of process of law. Therefore,
11 KL, J
Crl.P.No.6741 of 2024
proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. against petitioner/A.15 are
liable to be quashed.
14. In the result, proceedings in C.C.No.393 of 2023 on the
file of Court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First
Class for Excise Cases at Manoranjan Complex, Nampally,
Hyderabad, are hereby quashed in respect of petitioner/A.15
only.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
3rd APRIL, 2025.
kvni
[ad_1]
Source link