Telangana High Court
Mohammed Salahuddin Lodhi vs The State Of Telangana on 24 January, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.917 OF 2025
ORAL ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section – 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to
quash the proceedings in C.C. No.427 of 2024 pending on the file of
Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise at Nampally, Hyderabad,
against the petitioners herein – accused Nos.1 to 3, 5, 6 and 8.
2. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State.
3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3, 5,
6 and 8 in the aforesaid C.C. No.427 of 2024. The offence alleged
against them is under Section – 188 of IPC.
4. The allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are
while respondent No.1 was discharge patrolling duty he being Sub-
Inspector of Police in Charminar Police Station, on 30.05.2024 in the
morning hours, along with LWs.2 to 5 from Charminar to Madina
Junction, he received an information from accused Nos.1 and 2 that
2
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025
they are organizing a Press Conference at Charminar Monument along
with accused No.3. At about 11.30 A.M., it was found that some of
the Party workers of Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi (BRS) more than 80
persons gathered at Charminar. In the meantime, accused Nos.3 along
with 4 to 8 came in the form of Convoy got down at Gulzar House and
proceeded on walk towards Charminar Monument. In that process,
accused No.3 had hold press conference for four (04) times i.e., at
Opp. Shivam Temple, Mahadev Temple at Charkaman, Sadhbhavana
Poll at Charminar and Railing at Chariminar Monument for not
removing the symbols of Charminar and Kakatiya Kala Thoranam
from the Telangana State Logo which the present Government
supposed to be removed. On enquiry, he came to know that the
accused persons have conducted the press conference without taking
prior permission from the competent authority, and thereby, the
petitioners and other accused committed the aforesaid offence.
5. Basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a case
in Crime No.112 of 2024 was registered by Charminar Police Station
against the petitioners and others for the aforesaid offence and took up
investigation.
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025
6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
examined LWs.1 to 10 and after completion of investigation, the
police filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein and others for
the aforesaid offence and the same was taken on file as C.C. No.427
of 2024 by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise,
Hyderabad.
7. Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners,
would contend that the petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged
against them. To attract an offence under Section – 188 of IPC, there
must be an order promulgated by a public servant. In the instant case,
there is no such order. No independent witness was examined by the
Investigating Officer except examining the police officials. Therefore,
the proceedings in the aforesaid CC cannot go on against the
petitioners herein and the same are liable to be quashed against the
petitioners.
8. Whereas, it is contended by learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that there are specific allegations levelled against the
petitioners and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the present criminal
petition.
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025
9. In view of the above rival submissions, it is relevant to
extract Section – 188 of IPC and the same is extracted:
“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
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby
causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined
in this section.”
10. It is also relevant 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 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/charge1
. Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025sheet 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 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.”
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025
11. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra
Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari
District2 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao1
and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3, 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, 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.
2
. Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016
3
. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025
12. In Bhajan Lal3, the Apex Court cautioned that power of
quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and
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
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025offence, 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 reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of
decisions.
13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh4, the Apex Court referring to the earlier
judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section – 482 of Cr.P.C. has to
4
. AIR 2021 SC 931
10
KL,J
Crl.P. No.917 of 2025
quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with
extreme caution.
14. Therefore, the Investigating Officer did not follow the
procedure laid down under Section – 155 of Cr.P.C. and, as such, the
proceedings for the offence under Section – 188 of IPC are liable to be
quashed against the petitioners herein.
\
15. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and
the proceedings in C.C. No.427 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate of First Class for Excise at Nampally, Hyderabad, are
hereby quashed against the petitioners herein – accused Nos.1 to 3, 5,
6 and 8 only.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
24th January, 2025
Mgr