Allowed

V.v.Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Feb 2022CRLP/11898/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings instituted against two senior corporate officials. The court held that under the relevant provincial act, liability attaches only to those who physically affixed advertisements, and cognizance was illegal due to lack of a statutory complaint by a competent officer, amounting to an abuse

What did the court decide?

Criminal Proceedings CC No. 130 of 2013 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad were quashed.

V.v.Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHARANI}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 11898 OF 2013}

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

V.V.Rao, S/o Ranga^{Rao, aged46 years'Occ: Chairman'V V R Housinglndia} P!,t. Ltd., R/o S.R.Nagar,^HYderabad.

¶9

B,S.N.Murthy,^{S/o Venkat Rama} -Rao,^{aged 41, years,O.cc:} -Bustness' ^R/,,o - o.No.Z-zZ-zb. ftat ruo.to1, Sri Bhuvana Arcade, Jaya Nagar' 6th Koao' Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{No'1 and 2}

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra^{Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Highcourt of A.P.'} ;i HGd;;oJo, tniougn^{ps., pahaoisnarief, Cvberabad,RangaReddv District'}

¶13

Chintala Srinivas, S/o^{Satyanarayana' aged 31 years, occ:Asst. Engineer, o/o} - ApCpOCt (Operition), M-aheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District'

¶14

...RESPONDENT/GOM^PLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under section^{482 oI Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of^{Grounds of criminalPetition, the High courtmay be pleased} to^quash the cc.No.130^{ol 2013 on the file of the xlv luetropolitan Magistrate'} cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,^{Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioners/ Accused} No.1 and 2

¶16

I.A. N 1 0F 2013^{(CRLPMP.NO:10630oF 2013)}

¶17

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the [,4emorandum of^{Grounds of criminalPetition, the High courtmay be pleased} to stay all further^{proceedings including appearanceof the AccusedNo.1 and 2 in} cc.No..1 30 of 2013^{on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate,cyberabad at} L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy^{District, pending disposal of the Crl P}

¶18

This Petition coming on^{for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing the argumentsof Sri T. Koteshwara} Prasad, Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the} Respondent No.1 and^of sri^{K. R. KoteswaraRao, Advocatefor the Respondent} No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

THE t OYBLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA ll;tNl

¶21

CF IMTNAL PETITION No.11898 of 2013

¶22

ORDEII.:

¶23

This peti ion is filed by the petitioners-Al and .A.2 under Section 482 Cr.^).C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.130 of 2013 on the file of X V Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar taken on file fc r the offence under Section 4 of A.P. Prevention of Disfigurement rf Open Places and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable I osters and Adverlisements Act 1997 (for short 'the Act').

¶24

The r ase of tl.re petitioners in brief was that the 2"d respondent, the Assistant Engineer in APCPDCIL lodged a report belore the Polic:, Pahadi Shareef on 16-6-2012 at i0:C0 AM stating that some unk Lorvn persons unaLrthoriszed ly painteC Adri on the existing electrii al 11 KV and 33 KV poles besides the radiai road (along Srisailan Highway) with yellow coated red letters as VVR on about 150 poler which were the property of APCPDCL. On enquiry with local persc ns found that WR Reai estate Company belonged to the accused per ions who were the Chairman and Manag,ing Director and Vice Presi, Lent of the said company respectively.^'Ihe existing poles were marl ed with pole numbers and feeder names trnd the same were erased d re to yellow painting on the poles and it was inconvenient to identitl, the l-eeders. Basing on the said report, Police registered Crim: No.294 oi 2012 lbr the ollence undel Section 4 of A.P. Preventior ol Disfigurement ol Open Places and Proliibition of

¶25

¶26

C p.No.l l898 aI20l3

¶27

Obscene and Objectionable Posters and Advertisements Act 1997 and issued FIR. After completing the investigation, they filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the above offence. The case was taken cognizance by the leamed XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad for the above offence against the accused and summons were issued to them"

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners subrnitted that as per the complaint, sorre unknown persons painted the Ads but not the petitioners, the petitioners admittedly were Chainnan and Vice President of the company, they were not expected to write Advertisements on roads, they were unawa.re of their company name painted on the electric poles. As per the Act, the District Collector or the MRO were alone competent to lodge the complaint, taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate was illegal and relied upon the judgments of the High Courl of A.p. in Killi Kruparani v. State of Andhra Pradeshr and in Prabhakar Chowdary v, Kanakam Ra mesh2.

¶30

The leamed Assistant^{publicprosecutor} reporled to decide the petition on merits.

¶31

Perused the record. As per the charge sheet, the Asst. Engineer of APCPDCL lodged the report against the accused persons

¶32

'^{zot t el-o} tcrt)^t-,tJ4 '2008 ALT (Crl) r-366

¶33

¶34

Dt OlUt.J ( tlp l\o I 1898 o1 2t)13

¶35

who were the lhairman and Managing Director and Vice president of a Real estate c Jmpany and the case was registered by the police under

¶36

Section 4 of tt e Act.

¶37

Section I of the Act reads as follows:

¶38

r,a .penalty for unauthorized disfigurement by a( vertisements.

¶39

W roever affixes to, or inscribes or exhibits on any pl ce open to public view any advertisement w; :hout the written consent of the owner or occupier or person in management of the property in which su h place is situated shall be punistlea with im ;risonment ol either description for a lerm which mi y extend to three months or with fine u,hich shall no be lcss than one thousand rupees, or with borh...

¶40

The High Court of Ap in Killi Kruparani case (l supra)

¶41

held that:

¶42

,,fr,m the language employed in Section 4 of the Ac , penal liabiliry is artached ro rhe persons, $,ho aff <ed or inscribes or exhibits any adrenisement etc, and not to any others. In any elections par icularly general elections, several political par ies contest the elections and some of their wo: kers may paste posters containing photos and nan es of the state and national leaders whether alir : or no more. That will not clothe the police witl . right to prosecute those persons whose photos or r ames appear in the posters in case those liaders are alive. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind thal the prosecution launched in this case against the peti ioner is sheer abuse ofprocess of law.J

¶43

Hence the petitioners being the CMD and Vice president ol

¶44

the company ar( not liable fbr the olfence under Section ;l of.the Act, unless it is shc ryn that they had instructed or abetted affixing or inscribing or ex.ribiting their company name on the electric poles. Some of the wr rkers could have pasted or painted the cornpany,s name on the 1 oles. Without any evidence against their direct

¶45

¶46

involvement, prosecuting^{the people in the seniorpositions amountsto} an abuse of^process of law.

¶47

The leamed counsel for^{the petitionersalso relied upon the} judgment of High Court of A.P. in Prabhakar Chowdary^v. Kanakam Ramesh wherein^{reliance was placedon Section16 of the} Act and held that:

¶48

"5. Section l6 of^{the Actreadsas follows:}

¶49

I6.Cognizance of lhe offence.--No^cottt't sholl take cognizancc Qf any^offcncc punishable undcr this tlcl exccltl on^rt utnrploint.filed in^{thc trin citiasof Hldcrubtrd} or Sccunderahad,^{Ilisokhapalnantand} Vijayau,uda by the^{('omni.ssionerof Police tn'} hy the Police o.f/icer not^{helou'the rank of} lnspcclor of Police aulhorized^{by him in this} behalI and elsewhere^{b.v the DistrictCollector} or any OJ.ficer not^{bcloY'lhe rank of a l'tRO} authorized b'^{him in this behal-f."}

¶50

A perusal of^{the aboveprovision of larv discloses} that a complaint^{is 1o be filed by the District} Collector or officer^{not below the rank of MRO,} authorized by the^{DistrictCollector.In the present} case, the Inspector^{of Police, AnatapurII Town} Police Station, filed^{charge sheet. The charge sheet} does not disclose that^{the DistrictCollectoror any} officer not below^{the rankof MROauthorized by} the District Collector,^{gaveany complaint.In the} absence of such^a complaint,^{takingcognizanceof} the offence based on^{the charge sheet filed by the} Inspector of Police^{is bad in law. Therefore,the} proceedings against the^{petitionerare not} sustainable and^{theyare accordinglyquashed."}

¶51

In the^{presentcasealsothe complaintwas not filedby the} Commissioner of^{Police or the DistrictCollector or persons} authorized by them^{on their behalf.}

¶52

I I. Hence considering^{the above judgments,due to non} compliance of Section^{l6 of the Act, which was rnandatoty in nature} andSection4oftheAct,aspenalliabilitycannotbeattachedto

¶53

)

¶54

Dt.GtU.J t.- p.Na. 69u al20t3

¶55

¶56

persons other than those who affixed or inscribed or exhibited the advertisement ;, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings in CC 130 of 2013 on th: file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at LB Nagar against the petitioners as it amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶57

In .he result, the Criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings ir CC No. 130 of 2013 on rhe file orXIV Metroporiran Magistrate, C1 berabad at LB Nagar against the petitioners.

¶58

Miscelk neous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

sD/-K.AMMAJI ,TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT R EGIST R To, SECTION OFFICER tr#{"i:tr}r* of Telangana at iff$15plfr,,*fr

tdr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0410212022

ORDER