Telangana High Court
Tippani Srinivas Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5907 of 2022 and 10413 of 2024
COMMON ORDER :
These Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in
C.C.No.4490 of 2020 on the file of the learned VII Additional
Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at
Kukatpally, Cyberabad (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 341, 186, 120-B
and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property, 1984 (for short ‘Act’).
2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of
C.C.No.4490 of 2020, both the criminal petitions are heard
together and disposed of by way of this common order.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as
Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State
and perused the record. No representation on behalf of
respondent No.2.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto
complainant is the Deputy Commissioner of GHMC, Circle No.23,
Moosapet. The T.S. Housing Board has given an open land
admeasuring 191.60 square yards situated between MIG-30,
MIG-29/F-1/F-3/F-5, Chaitanya Food Court back side, 3rd Phase,
2
KPHB Colony, to the GHMC, Circle No.23, for the purpose of
public activities at free of cost. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to
4, who are adjacent land holders, in criminal conspiracy with each
other have trespassed into the GHMC land with an intention to
grab the same and raised illegal constructions. On knowing the
same, when de facto complainant along with LW-2/Chilla Sridhar
Prasad and LW-3/Koyyada Kumar tried to prevent the illegal
constructions, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 with a common
intention have wrongfully restrained them, obstructed their duties
and threatened them with dire consequences. Basing on the
complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the Sub-Inspector
of Police registered a case in Crime No.225 of 2020 for the
aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed before the trial Court. The same was taken cognizance
and numbered as C.C.No.4490 of 2020.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have nothing to do with the
offences alleged against them. There are no specific allegations
against the petitioners and the ingredients of offences alleged
against them are not made out. He further submits that the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 are Journalists. The petitioner-
accused No.2 is the brother of petitioner-accused No.4. Being
Journalists, they have been active in bringing issues pertaining to
3
illegal, unauthorized constructions and land grabbing disputes to
light that involved Government officials by taking bribe. In order to
gag the petitioners, a false case has been foisted against them by
the de facto complainant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits that to initiate any criminal proceeding against the
accused under Section 186 of IPC, the complainant has to file a
private complaint as contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
and the Court cannot take cognizance unless a public servant
files a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Since
the prime offence under Section 186 of IPC is barred by Section
195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without
jurisdiction, and thus, he prayed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
contended that there are specific allegations against the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4. All the allegations levelled in the
complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial,
and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this
stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. For the sake of convenience, Section 186 of IPC and
Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.
4
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…”
9. According to Section 195 of Cr.P.C., under Sections 172 to
188 of IPC, a complaint in writing should be given by a concerned
public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. As per
Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., a “complaint” means an allegation made
orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with the intention of initiating
action under the Code, that a person, known or unknown, has
committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the
material on record clearly depicts that there was no complaint in
writing by the de facto complainant, who was an official of GHMC
against the petitioners before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging
the offence under Section 186 of IPC. On the other hand, he has
filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Police for investigation.
The registration of a case by the Police under Section 186 of IPC
5
itself is illegal. On the date of registration of case itself, the bar
under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. was operating and the Police has no
jurisdiction even to register a case under Section 186 of IPC.
Once an illegality perpetrates into the investigation, such
investigation is hit by the statutory principles, then it cannot be
construed as a legal proceeding or a legal investigation by the
Police.
11. Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines “complaint” as allegations
made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the
Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only
on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under
Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the procedure prescribed
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. In the present
case, though there is a bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the
Police after conducting investigation have filed charge sheet
before the trial Court and the same was taken cognizance by the
learned Magistrate, which is contrary to law. Therefore, the First
Information Report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance
on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction and the same are
liable to be quashed.
6
12. In the judgment of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy 1, at
Paragraph No.8, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“8. 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”.
13. Reading of the above judgment makes it clear that if the
offences form part of same transaction of the offences
contemplated under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C, then it is not
possible to split up and hold that prosecution of the accused for
the other offences should be upheld.
14. In the present case, one of the offences alleged against the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 is Section 186 of IPC and the
same cannot be taken of cognizance by the Court as per Section
195 of Cr.P.C. Then, the consequent alleged offences i.e.,
Sections 447, 427, 241, 120-B and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Section
3 of the Act, which formed part of the same transaction are not
possible to split up to hold the prosecution of the petitioners and
cannot be given roof in the same crime.
15. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of
1
AIR 1981 SC 1417
7
criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4
amounts to abuse of process of the law and the same are liable to
be quashed.
16. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 in
C.C.No.4490 of 2020 on the file of the learned VII Additional
Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate
at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
___________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 08.04.2025
rev