Shaik Sajid Sajju vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2025

Telangana High Court

Shaik Sajid Sajju vs The State Of Telangana on 3 January, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.15984 of 2024
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 to quash the proceedings against

them in C.C.No.1199 of 2020 on the file of I Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial, Jagtial District,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 186,

353, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC‘).

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for

petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-

State and perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are:

Upon the search warrant issued by the II Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Jagtial for cheating the

Court by impersonating against Popular Front of India party

office premises, LW’s1 to 6, who are VRO’s and police

personnel went to the said premises to execute the search
2

warrant on 15.11.2018 at about 13.30 hrs and basing on the

complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent-Village Revenue

Officer, Tippannapet village, Jagtial District, the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6, who are the office bearers of

Popular Front of India party, Jagtial, have assembled at

Popular Front of India office, Gunj Chowrasta-Jagtial, they

assaulted and obstructed the legitimate duties of the

complainant and another as well as police persons. Hence a

case in Crime No.308 of 2018 is registered for the offences

under sections 143, 186, 353, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code which was taken on file by I Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate at Jagtial, vide C.C.No.1199 of 2020.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that

the incident occurred on 15.11.2018 between 13.00 to 14.30

hours but it was submitted before the concerned Court on

18.11.2024 at 1.00 pm by Jagtial police with unexplained

delay, which clearly shows the malafide intention of the

respondent to book false case against the petitioners herein. It

is further submitted that entire investigation done by the

respondent police upon the complaint made by the defacto
3

complainant who is a revenue officer, and by colluding with

them implicated the petitioners herein with pre-determined

objective and there is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

to take cognizance for the offences under Sections 172 to 188

of IPC. Therefore, the FIR registered on the complaint made

by the de facto complainant, who is a Village Revenue Officer,

is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

submitted that the petitioners have committed the offences

alleged against them. Section 186 of IPC is a cognizable

offence and therefore, it is the duty of the Police to register a

case. Though there is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

to take cognizance for the offence under Section 186 of IPC, it

does not mean that the Police cannot register FIR and

investigate the case. He further submitted that the truth or

otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners

shall only be known after conducting investigation and

full-fledged trial, and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
4

6. For the sake of convenience, Section 186 of IPC and

Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.

186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant
in the discharge of his public functions, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three months, or with fine
which may extend to five hundred 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…”

7. Further, it is significant to note the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy 1,

wherein it is held as under:

” 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

1
AIR 1981 SC 1417
5

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)

8. It is relevant here to extract Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is as under-

(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).

9. In the instant case, a perusal of the charge sheet discloses

that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offence

punishable under Section 186 of IPC including other penal

provisions i.e., 143, 353 and 506 of IPC. As per the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemareddy (supra) it is

clear that if the offences formed part of the same transaction of

the offences contemplated under Section 195(1) (b) of Cr.P.C.,
6

it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of accused

for the other offences. In view of the above, the FIR

culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences

stands vitiated. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings

against the petitioners is nothing but 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 6 in respect of FIR No.1199 of 2020 of I Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed.

____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 03.01.2025
BV