Allowed

Ravoori Venkata Swamy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Aug 2012CRLP/5023/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in a case involving obstruction of traffic during election propaganda. The court held that because cognizance was taken without a complaint from the notified superior police officer as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., the proceedings were invalid.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in S.T.C.No.8 of 2005 in Crime No.77 of 2004 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner, were quashed.

Ravoori Venkata Swamy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5023 of 2010

¶5

Between:

¶6

Ravoori Venkata Swamy & another

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶10

.. Respondent

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶13

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5023 of 2010

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in S.T.C.No.8 of 2005 in Crime No.77 of 2004, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner, registered for offences

¶16

punishable under Section 188 IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861.

¶17

2. The Petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 (for short, ‘A-1 and A-2’) and the respondent is the complainant in S.T.C.No.8 of 2005. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in S.T.C.

¶18

3. A-1 was the contested candidate for No.21 Chittoor Parliamentary constituency and A-2 was the contested candidate for No.141 Palamaner Assembly constituency on behalf of the National Congress (I) Party in the year 2004. They involved in road show and procession along with others for the election propaganda. During procession, they used more than three vehicles each and got exploded crackers and caused obstruction for free flow of traffic on NH-4 and annoyance to public peace and thereby violated the Election code of conduct and also Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, and, hence, they are liable for punishment under Section 188 IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861. On receiving necessary information, the case was registered in Crime No.77 of 2004, on the file of Palamaner Police Station, under Section 188 IPC and Section 32 of Police Act, 1861.

¶19

4. Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. reads:

¶20

“(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

¶21

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

¶22

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

¶23

(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;

¶24

(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

¶25

(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

¶26

(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), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.”

¶27

5. Learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 mainly contends that with regard to the alleged offences, the procedure contemplated under Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. was to be followed and as it was not followed, the proceedings are to be quashed. He has in this context relied on a judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.9172 of 2010, dated 17.09.2010, wherein a portion of the order reads as follows:

¶28

“Section 30 of the Police Act lays down that only the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District can promulgate the order and none else and that Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC except on the complaint in writing by the Public Servant who promulgated the order or his immediate

¶29

subordinate.”

¶30

6. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. should have been followed in the case for the offence punishable under the said Sections, but in the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palamaner, who was not the person who promulgated the order under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861. Because the charge sheet was filed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 195 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the offences against A-1 and A-2 and, therefore, the case is liable to be quashed.

¶31

7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in S.T.C.No.8 of 2005 in Crime No.77 of 2004, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner.

¶32

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶33

Date: 24^th August, 2012

¶34

¶35

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶36

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5023 of 2010

¶37

Date: 24^th August, 2012

¶38