Quashed

Kakani Govardhan Reddy v. The State of Ap.

Telangana HC14 Mar 2013CRLP/2092/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 188 IPC and Section 30 of the Police Act for violating election code of conduct. The Court held that cognizance could not be taken without a written complaint by the administratively subordinate public servant as required by Section 195(1)(a) CrPC, leading to undue hardship.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.418 of 2009 were quashed and the criminal petition was allowed.

Kakani Govardhan Reddy Vs The State of Ap. — Election Law | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2092 of 2013

¶3

Date: 14.03.2013

¶4

Between: Kakani Govardhan Reddy And The State of A.P.

¶5

…Petitioner/A1

¶6

…Respondent

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2092 of 2013

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.418 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

¶11

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶12

3. Basing on the report lodged by LW.1, ASI of 5^th Town Police Station, Law and Order, Nellore, the Sub-Inspector of Police, 5^th Town Police Station, Nellore filed charge sheet under Section 188 of IPC and Section 30 of the Police Act in Crime No65 of 2009 of V Town Police Station (L&O), Nellore. It is alleged in the charge sheet that on 23.03.2009 at about 04.00 PM, the petitioner/accused who was said to be the sympathizer of Congress-I party lost hope of getting ‘B’ form to contest the election of parliament and assembly, took out procession with an intention to show their supremacy and strength in the party cadre with 3000 people and sympathizers of congress party in Nellore Town from Ayyappa temple to Chaithanyapuri colony and held a public meeting in Sairam Nagar in front of the house of A1 and requested the general public to cast their votes in favour of Congress I party in the coming elections and see that the party should win. It is alleged against them that they taking out such a procession violated the code of conduct announced by the Election Commission of India in connection with the parliament and Assembly elections which came into force from 16.03.2009.

¶13

4. In the first place, it requires to be noticed that the complaint is vague and lacking in details. Further, as per Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution for the offences under Sections 172 to 188 of IPC, cognizance cannot be taken except on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or of the public servant, who was administratively subordinate to the authority which promulgated in the order. Here, the report was allegedly lodged by the ASI of Police. Basing on the said report, the Sub Inspector of Police, Nellore 5^th Town Police Station, registered a case under Section 188 of IPC and Section 30 of the Police Act is only ancillary.

¶14

5. In any event, in the present case there is no complaint in writing made by the public servant concerned since either the ASI of Police, who gave the report or the SI of Police, who filed the charge sheet cannot be said to be the public servants, who were administratively subordinate to the authority which promulgated in the order. Basing on such charge sheet, the learned magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence. If the petitioner/accused is made to face the trial in a case of this nature, it will result in miscarriage of justice and the petitioner will be subjected to undue hardship and lot of inconvenience. Therefore, to meet the requirements of justice, this Court is of considered view that the case is liable to be quashed.

¶15

6. For the foregoing reasons, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.418 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore are hereby quashed and the criminal petition is allowed.

¶16

7. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this petition shall stand closed.

¶17

________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶18

Date: 14.03.2013 Note: issue c.c. by Monday

¶19

b/o kvrm

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2092 of 2013

¶22

Date: 14.03.2013

Kakani Govardhan Reddy v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakani Govardhan Reddy v. The State of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ganne Seshamma

M/s.National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr.Gadekari Hussain Saheb

A.Gnaneshwar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palle Mallesham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Malla Koteswara Rao , Koti Vs The State of Ap.

Thoutireddy Gopal Reddy Vs St.Pauls Christian Educational Society