Allowed

Keshav Agarwal v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Oct 2024CRLP/8300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in connection with alleged violations regarding electronic cigarettes. The Court held that the petitioner faced no of curriculum and could not be held liable for the restaurant's sale of e-cigarettes.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.162 of 2024 are quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending are closed.

Keshav Agarwal Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8300 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Keshav Agarwal, S/o Narendra Agarwal Age. 29^years, Occupation.^Business R/o. Flat. No.101, Rock Levels Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{High Court may} be pleased to quash tfre^proceedings against the Petitioner/A1^{pursuant to} CC.No.162 OF 2024 on the file of Hon'ble X Additional Metropolitan^Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District. at Kukatpally.

¶14

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C^praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings pursuantto CC.No.162OF 2024 on} the file of Hon'ble X Additional Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District,at} Kukatpally.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusing the Alemorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing^{the argumentsof Sri M/S INDUS} LAW FIRIM ,Advocate for the Petitioner and^{Sri D.Arun Kumar, the Additional} Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Sole^Respondent.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.83OO of 2024

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.J to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.162 of 2O24 on the file of the learned X Additional Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally, registered lor the offences punishable under Section 188 of the lndian^penal Code, 186O (for short 'IPC) and Sections 4 and 5 read with 7 of the Prohibition of ElecLionic Cigarettes (ProducLion, Manufacture, Import, Bxport, Tra:nsport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019 (for short'the Act).

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that !!e respondent registered the case against the petitioner stating that as per the instructions of the Station House Officer, Madhapur, on3l.l2.2O23 while performing New Year Bandobust duties, he checked Olive Bistro Bar and Restaurant, Madhapur, and found that the said Restaurant was selling e-cigarettes to the customers by violating ,h. O"r::l:ent Ord1s, Thereafter, the Police registered a case . in C r=ime No.02 of 2024 foi the

¶25

<br>

¶26

¶27

sr(s,J C.LP.N'.aSOO of 2024

¶28

offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 read with 7 of the Act. After completion of investiga[ion, the Police filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.162 of 2024 befcsre the learned X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

¶29

Heard Sri N.V Sumanth, learned counsel representing M/s. Indus Law Firm, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶30

Learned counsel for the pelitioner submitted that the allegations' leVeled against the petitioner^.are vague ald baseless. Even if,n.'.4O.. .ornprrr, o. the charge sheet are taken in toto, the offences as alleged by the respondent do not constitute against the petitioner. He further submitted that since there is a bar under Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C, that when the complaint is not made by the public servant/ authorized ofhcer in written, the same cannot be treated as the offence punishable under Section 188 of the I.P.C.He further submitted that the petitioner is working as CEO of Deccan Electricals Private Limited and he is no way conce.rned. with-.the, Olive -Bistro^-.Bar and Restaurant. The

¶31

¶32

srrs,J C.LP.No.83OO of 2024

¶33

petitioner is not engaged in the sale of e-cigarettes to anyone. Therefore, Sections 4 and 5 read with 7 of the Act do not attract to the present case. Hence, the aliegations levelled against the petitioner do not constitute any offence, as such, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶34

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations levelied against the petitioner are serious in nature, and at this stage, it qannot be said that.the. said aUegatisqs do..not saqsEtute .,..,. i, i;,-r. , .1r.:::1 l:: lrrr-. t1t. l, ,,i,..,-. ., any offence. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶35

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are under Section 188 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 read with 7 of the Act. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is neither the owner nor worker in the Olive Bistro Bar and Restaurant and that he did not sell any e-cigareltes to the customers. At

¶36

¶37

sr(s,J CrLP.No.a3O0 oJ 2024

¶38

¶39

this stage it is imperaLive to note the relevant Sections. which reads as under:

¶40

7 . Section 188 ol the I.p.C reads as follows:

¶41

Section 188: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.

¶42

¶43

Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant la*fully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to Ital<e. certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfuJ.ly employed, be punished with simple imprisonmeht for a term which may exlend to. one .inqnth^{or withfine whichmay -extend.} to two. hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, sha11 be punished with imprisonment of either description for a lerm ,,t hich ma1 exlend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. or wilh both.

¶44

Explaration: It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

¶45

Illustration An .o1de1 .i9 prqmulgated by a public servalt lawfully empowered to promulgate such order,

¶46

¶47

srs,J crl.P.No.asoo oJ 2024

¶48

directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence dehned in this section".

¶49

¶50

Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Act, which reads as under:

¶51

On and from the date of commencement of this Act, no person sha11, directly or indirectly,-

¶52

(i) produce or manufacture or import or export or transport or sell or distribute electronic cigarettes, whether as a complete produce or any part thereof; and

¶53

(ii) advertise electronic cigarettes or take part in any advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes the ule of,blectronic cigarettes.-

¶54

,. ...ll.vl;

¶55

On and from the date of commencement of this Act, no person, being the owner or occupier of having the control or use of aly place shall, knowingly permit it to be used for storage of any stock of electrorlic cigarel tes:

¶56

Provided that any existing stock of electronic cigarettes as on the date of the commencement of this Act kept or sale, distribution, transport, export or advertisement shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter specified

¶57

(a) The owner or occupier of the place

¶58

with respect to the existing stock of

¶59

electronic cigarettes shall, szo mofu, prepare a list of such . stock of elect roni. cigarettes in his /,..I I I

¶60

¶61

srs,J crLP.No.aSOO of 2024

¶62

possession and

¶63

without

¶64

unnecessary delay submit the stock as specified in the list to the nearest office of the authorized officer; and (b) The authorized officer to whom any stock of electronic cigarettes is forwarded under clause {a) shall, with all convenient dispatch, ta-ke such measures as may be necessary for the disposal according to the law for the time being il force.

¶65

Whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 4, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year with nne which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for 1^{term whilt-r maV,extend.to. lhre]eyearsand withfine} which may extend to ftve lakh rupees." . l

¶66

Section 195(i) (a) of Cr.P.C., reads as under:-

¶67

"1i; 1a; of any offence punishable under Sections

¶68

\72 lo 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

¶69

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

¶70

(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 administrativelv subordinate;"

¶71

¶72

¶73

sr(s,J CrLP.No.A3OO oj 2024

¶74

Reverting to the facts of the case on hand and a perusal of Section 188 of IPC would reveal that the said Section is not appiicable to the present case. Further, there is a bar under Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C., whereunder, a written complaint has to be hled by the public servant/authorized officer and it is not followed in the present case.

¶75

¶76

That apart, the petitioner was also charged for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 read u,ith 7 of the Act. A perusal of the said Sections would reveal that from the date of commencement of the Act, no person shall directly or indirectly produce or manufacture or import or export or . -:-- ' -.'' transport.or sell of distributg el9ctr-onic cigareltls, wtrether as a complete product or any part thereof and not to advertise electronic cigarettes or take part in any advertisement that directly or indirectly promotes the use of electronic cigarettes.

¶77

In the present case, thc petitioner is neither tht: owner nor the worker in the Olive Bistro Bar and Restaurant. Further, the petitioner is not selling or transporting or exporting or importing or manufacturing or advertising the electronic cigarettes, but the petitioner was present in the said premises. Except the said allegation, there is no other specific

¶78

¶79

st(s,J CrLP,No.a3OO oJ 2024

¶80

allegation against the pctitioner. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner do not constitute any offence, as such, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.

¶81

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.162 of 2024 on the file of the learned X Additional Metropoiitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, are hereby quashed.

¶82

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also

¶83

stand closed.

¶84

Sd/. T. TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR A, , ,..t1 .- LTI''

' /rrRuE,coPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1-TheXAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,RangaReddyDistrict,at KukatPallY.

¶89

z. ih. dirti6n^{HouseOfficer,MadhapurPoliceS-taron'Cuberabad'}

¶90

a o"; cc^{to trtts INDUS LAW FIRM' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶91

4.TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat HyderabadIOUT]

¶92

Two CD^CoPies

¶93

AR /gh

¶94

¶95

HIGH COURT DATED:0411012024

¶96

I
I
r E,LA
'^Q
A.\ s x
I ORDER FUJc) ="i\ IoUJ
III eo \G, /
CRLP.No.8300 of 2024
I
o ,:/

¶97

ALLOWING THE CRL.P.

¶98

s(p@ Ft+1-rr\ur

Keshav Agarwal v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Agarwal v. State of Telangana

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

Rapaka Mohana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rapaka Mohana Rao Vs The State ofTelangana

Salman Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Abdul Yousuf Vs Fatima Badrul Batul

Rondla Deepi Chandan @ Rondla Deepu Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Nagarakunta Naveen Reddy Vs State of Telangana