Allowed

Bajireddy Govardhan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Mar 2021CRLP/270/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed CC proceedings. Complaint filed by Superintendent of Police was held invalid as they lacked authority to grant public meeting permission under Police Act 1861. Technical defect violated Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., warranting quash.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 97 of 2018 were quashed against the petitioner.

Bajireddy Govardhan Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE^{TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNO :270 OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Baiireddv Govardhan,^{S/o. Diqamber,Aged about} 90^{years' Occ lt'4LA Nizamabad} "R;i;i, ili" 1: iil r - s i io ir ic^-riZi [ 6 o r b n v] r'r, n a I a x m i N a s a r' .P ?]gli ItJ#',f 33^31t "

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor' High Court for the Stateof} Telanoana at^HYderabad

¶11

Telanoana at^HYderabad

¶12

1. Chiluka^{Narayana, S/o. lsthari, Aged 56Years:Ogc:S.up-erllendant,l/CIr/PDO-} ' ilir"rio"o,-rirbc-sz rtrlza*mltiao-nurii constituencv-018' R/o Janakampet Village of Yedpally^Mandal' ...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

...RES'ONDENTS

¶14

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr'P 'C praying thatin the circumstancesstated} inthetvlemorandumofGroundsofCrimina|Petition,theHighCourtmaybepleased tocallfortherecordrelatingtoCCNogTof20lS'onthefileofSpecialSessions Judge for^{MP and MLA Cases,at Hyderabad and quash the proceedings therein}

¶15

LA. NO: 2 oF²⁰²¹

¶16

petition under secaon 4g2 of cr.p.c^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated} inthelvlemorandumofGroundsofCrimina|Petition,theHighCourtmaybepleased to^{grant stayall further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C C No'} gTot2ols,onthefileofspecialsessionsJudgeforMPandMLAGases'at Hyderabad' per Court Order^{dated OglO7l2O2lin lA No 3/2021 in} (Prayer amended^as Crl P.No.27012021)

¶17

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandUmof Grounds^{of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri KATIKA} RAVINDER^{REDDY,Advocate for the Petitioner and of the PublicProsecutoron} behalf of^{the ResPondentNo'1'}

¶18

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶19

THE HON'BLE^{JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN}

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.27O of 2O2l}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Petition, under^{Section 182 ol Cr.P.C., is} filed by the petitioner/Accused to quash the^proceedings in C.C.No.97 of 2018 on the file of Court of Special Sessions .Iudge for M.P. and M.L.A. cases at Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section i88 of IPC.

¶23

Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/ Accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 - State.

¶24

The allegation against the petitioner in C.C. No.97 of 2018 is that he visited Yellammakunta habitation of Amrabad Gram Panchayat on 23.O4.2OL4 v"'ithout valid permission of authorities concerned and thereby disobeyed the orders duly promulgated by the public servant. Thus, he has committed the offence under Section 1BB of IPC.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on an unreported judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public prosecutorr, would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence and the present proceedings in C.C. No.97 of 20 18 are liable to be quashed in view of the principle laid down in the said judgment.

¶26

I Crinrinal Petirion No.5323 ol'2009, dated t,l.(Jg.2OOg

¶27

¶28

KLJ
Crl.P.No 270 of202l

¶29

In the said judgment, while dealing with the offences

¶30

under Sections 188 and 283 of IpC, it was held as under:

¶31

"5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions conlrary to thc permission accorded for conducting oi a public mceting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Policc Act, 186 1 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 (l) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in tJlis 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 SLlb Inspcctor of Poltce. rvho could not l.la.c becn the ar,rthoritv to grant permission for the public mccting and therelore, the complaint lcharge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section I95(1)(a) ofCode of Criminal Procedure.

¶32

That apart, the offence alleged to have been committe d 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 tra-{Iic 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

¶33

KI. J Crll, No 27o ul lotl

¶34

-3

¶35

be covered by Section 2g3 of the Indian penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the trafflc 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 traffrc, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the exist6nce of an offence punishable under Indial 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 violarion of Section l9S (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail.

¶36

As the complaint has failed due to its unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the l"r accused arlone approached this Court by rvay of this Criminal Petition."

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on another unreported judgment of High Court ol Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Thota chandra sekhar v. The State of Andhra pradesh, through S.H.O., p.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2, wherein by relying various judgments, including N.T. Rama Raor, and also guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, more particularly, guideline No.6, which sa-vs that where there is an express regal bar engrafted in an-v of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under $,hich a criminal

¶38

-. Criminal petirion No,15248 o1.2016, dated 26.10.20t6

¶39

Il I I I j

¶40

4 KL. J Crl.P.No.270 of202l 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, it was held that the proceedings ir-r the said C.C. No.13 of 2016 s'ere quashcd br' exercising porver under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It u'as also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission^under Section 155 (2) ol Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on^the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the^purportof Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.

¶41

In view of the above said authoritative^{pronouncements,} coming to the case on hand, the^{only allegation againstthe} petitioner herein is that he visited Yellammakunta^habitation of Amrabad Gram Panchayat on^{23.04.2014withoutvalid} permission of authorities concerned and^{thus, he has} disobeyed the orders duly^{promulgatedby the public servant} and, thus, the petitioner herein^{has committedan offence} under Section I88 of IPC. ln^{the present case, the complaint} rvas filed b1' the Superintendent^{(l/c.) MPDO-Nizamabad,} MCC-37 Nizamabad Rural^{Constituency-O 18, u'hich is purelv} politically motivated with an^{uiteriormotive towreak} vengeance against the^{petitioner, who belongs to rival party} and, therefore, the complaint/charge^{sheet is in violation of} the mandatory^{provision of Section195 (1) (a) of Cr'P'C'}

¶42

5 Kl- r

¶43

Thus, applying the principle laid down in the above'Ije';liJ; judgments, the proceedings in C.C. No.97 of 2O1g are liable to be quashed, in exercise of powers under Secti on 4g2 of Cr.P.C.

¶44

Accordingly, the present criminal petition is alowed and the lurther proceedings in c.c.No.97 of 20rg on the file of Court of Special Sessions Judge for M.p. and M.L.A. cases at Hyderabad, are hereb,y quashed against the petitioner.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶46

Sd/.K.ONESIM

¶47

Note: This order is amended as per court order date d ogtort2o2lASS|STANT^REGISTRAR mlde in lA No.3 of 2021 inCrl p.No.270l2OZr.-fn"'n"r"'Ii tne Court of Speciat Sessions Judoe for trlp ano Um Ca.".ii'[vii#o"d. tn ptace of ll Additionat Metroooliian Sessions iuoge, a1 r.rimpaiiili nvoeraoao. This order substitutes the earher order dat ed 12tO312021 , which was despatched 24t03t2021 in ca.e.zl otioil.--- -^{"- -"',*'}

¶48

Sd/-R,KARTHIKEYAN ASSISIANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \.t' SECTION OFFICER

¶49

¶50