Allowed

Shiva Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Feb 2025CRLP/15536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused Nos.11 to 19 sought quashing of proceedings under Sections 188 and 290 IPC arising from a 2018 election campaign meeting held without prior permission. Following the court's earlier order quashing the same case against accused Nos.1 to 7, the High Court held the charge sheet filed by police violated Section 195(1)(a) CrPC and quashed proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners (accused Nos.11 to 19) in C.C. No.389 of 2019 quashed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Shiva Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15536 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shiva Reddy, S/o Raman Goud., Aged about. 59 Years, Caste. Boya, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Balgera Village of Ghattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District

¶8

IVlalipatel Narayana Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy, Aged about. 52 Years, Caste.Boya, Occ: Business, R/o Balgera Village of Ghattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶9

S. Ramu,, S/o Timappa, Aged about. 37 Years, Caste.Boya, Occ: Business, (Valmiki District President), R/o Balgera Village of Ghattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶10

Sarabai Krishna, s/o Somanna, Aged about. 43 Years, Caste.Boya, Occ: Agriculture. R/o. Balgera Village of Ghattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶11

Kanchan Venkatesh, s/o Timappa, Aged about.28 Years, Caste.Boya, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Boyalagudam of Gattu mandal. Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶12

Kanchan Krishna, s/o Timmappa, Aged about. 30 Years, Caste.Boya, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Boyalagudam of Gattu mandal. Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶13

Boya Nagaraju, S/o Timappa, Aged about. 25 Years, Caste.Boya, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Boyalagudam of Gattu mandal. Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶14

Karnam Raghavendhar Rao, S/o Karnam Bheem Rao, Aged about. 56 Years, Caste.Brahmin , Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Boyalagudam of Gaftu mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶15

9, Padala Omkar, S/o Narsimulu, Aged about. 39 Years, Caste. Kurva, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Boyalagudam of Gattu mandal. Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶16

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1l TO 19

¶17

AND

¶18

The State of Telangana, Through SHO, Ghattu Police Station, Jogulamba Gadwal District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶19

2, B. Naresh,, S/o. Sattaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) of lrrigation Dep of Jogulamba Gadwal District), MCC Mandal Nodal officer, Ghattu Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶21

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition. the High court may be pleased to Quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.1 1 to 19 in c.c.No.3B9 of 2019, on the file of lAdditional Junior civir Judge -cum- First Additional Judicial lrilagistrate of First class at Gadwal. Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., 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 in c.c.No.3g9 of 201g,on the file of I Additional Junior crvil Judge -cum- First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class at Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District including the appearance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 1 to 1g.

¶24

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri pooJARl SRILEKHA, Advocate for the petitioners and the public prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.^'l None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{K. LAKSHMAN}

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.15536^{OF 2o24}

¶27

ORAL ORDER:

¶28

Heard Ms.Srilekha Poojari,^{learned counselfor the} petitioners and Dr.S.Prashanth,^{learned Assistant Public} Prosecutor appearing on^{behalf of respondent No' 1 - State.}

¶29

This Criminal Petition is^{Iiled underSection- 528 of} the Bharatiya Nagarik^{SurakshaSanhita, 2023(BNSS), to} quash the proceedings in C.C.^{No.3B9 of 2OI9 pendingon} the lile of the I Additional^{Junior Civil Judge-cum-l} Additional Judicial Magistrate^{of the First Class, Gadwal,} Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶30

The petitioners herein are^{arraigned as accused} Nos.11 to 19 in the^{said case.The offencesalleged against} them are under Sections^{188 and 29O of the IndianPenal} Code, 1860^(for short^'lPC').

¶31

The allegations^{levelled in the charge sheet are that,} respondent No.2 being^{A.E.E. of IrrigationDepartmentwas} appointed as Model Code of^{Conduct,Mandal Nodal} Officer, Ghattu Mandal,^by the^{District Election Officer and}

¶32

¶33

District Collector in respect of Gadn al Assembly Constituency. He (LW. 1) lodged a report dated O2.12.2Ol8 with the Station House Officer, Ghattu Police Station, against the petitioners herein stating that they conducted public meeting ln villages l.e Boyaldgudam, Induvasi, Anthampally, Baligera, Macherla and Yellamdoddi of Gattu Mandal without taking any prior permission from the competent authority for election campaigning on behalf of MLA contested caldidate of Congress Party in General Assembly Elections, 2O 18 and conducted meeting on 01.12.2OI8 between 12.00 to 16.00 hours, ancl thereby they have violated model code of conduct. Thus, the petitioners were committed the aforesaid offences

¶34

Basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.157 of 2018 was registered by Ghattu Police Station against the petitioners and other accused for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation.

¶35

After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid

¶36

¶37

offences and the same^{was taken on file as C.C. No.389of} 2Ol9 by learned I Additional^{Judicia-l Magistrateof First} Class, Gadwal.

¶38

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner has contendedthat} this Court vide order^{dated 07.03'2024 in CrI.P.No.2574of} 2024 quashed the^{proceedings in very same C.C. against} accused Nos.1 to⁷

¶39

In the light of^{the same, it is relevantto note} paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8^{of the order dated 07.03'2024 in} Crl.P.No.2574 of 2024:

¶40

In N.T. Rama Rao v'^{The State of A.P., rep' by} Public Prosecutorr^{while dealingwith the offences} under Sections - 188^{and 283 of IPC, the learned} Single Judge held as^under:

¶41

"5) Even if the allegation^{that the petitioner} conducted public meetings^{at three road} junctions contrary to the permission accorded^for conducting of a public^{meeting only atone} specilied place is true,^{such a direction under} Section 30 of the^{Police Act,1861 could have been} given only by the Superintendent^{or the Assistant}

¶42

r. Criminal Petition No.5323 of2009, decided on 17 09 2009

¶43

¶44

Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is grarted under Section 3O of the Police nct, i861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code oI Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by thc public scrvant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizalce of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the prescnt case, the charge sheet was hled by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to gr:u'rt permission for the public meeting and thcrefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Crimina.l Procedure.

¶45

That apart, the offence alleged to have beerr committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence undcr Section 188 of Indian Penal Code ald is not an independent of the same. Even othenvise, thc conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traflic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any pcrson. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Scction 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when

¶46

¶47

the conduct of the^{publicmeetingat least at one} place has been permitted^{and if the gathering for} that public meeting^{resulted in any inconvenience} by way of obstructing^{the traffic, the same cannot} be considered to be with^{necessary guiltymens} rea to construe the^{existence ofan- offence} punishable under Indian Penal^{Code.Underthe} circumstances, none^{of the offencesalleged can} be said to have aly^{reasonablebasis ald in any} view, the complaint/charge^{sheet being in} violation of Section 195^{(1) (a) of Code of Criminal} Procedure, has to fail.

¶48

As the complaint has^{failed due to its un-} sustainability, the^{proceedings in their entirety} have to fai1, though^{the1"t accusedalone} approached this^{Court by way of this Criminal} Petition."

¶49

In Thota Chandra^{Sekharv. The State of} Andhra Pradesh, through^{S.H.o.,P.S. EluruRural'} West Godavari^{Dlstrictzrelying on various judgments} including N.T. Rama Raol^{and the guidelinesIaid} down by the^{Hon'bleSupremeCourt inState of} Haryana v. Bhajan^{Lal3, moreparticularly, guideline} No.6, which says that^{where there is al expresslegal} bar engrafted in any^{of the provisions of the Code or}

¶50

2- Criminal Pctition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26' 10 2016

¶51

r. (tqgz) supp. I scc 335

the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continua:tct: 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 Lhe party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It furthcr held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.

¶56

In view of the above said authoritative pronouncements, coming to the case on hald, the only allegation against the petitioners herein is that thcy participated in election campaigning and conducted meeting without prior permission from competent authority on O1.72.2078 between 120O to 16OO hours, and thercby they violated the Election Model Code of Conduct during the Election Code, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. But, there is no mention in the charge sheet as to which orders that

¶57

¶58

were disobeyed by the^{petitioners.In the presentcase,} the complaint was filed by^{LW. 1, AEE of Irrigation} Department of Jogulamba -^{GadwalDistrict ald the} charge sheet is hled by the Sub-lnspector^{of Police,} Ghattu Police Station and, therefore,^{the charge sheet} is in violation of the mandatory^{provisionof Section -} 195 (l) (a) of Cr.P.C. Section^{- 188 of IPC deals with} 'disobedience to^{order duly promulgatedby public} servant. It says whoever, knowing^{that, by an order} promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered^to promulgate such order, he is directed to^{abstainfrom a} certain act, or to take certain^{orderwithcertain} property in his possession or under his^management, disobeys such direction,^{shall, ifsuch disobedience} causes or tends to cause obstruction,^{annoyance or} injury, or risk of obstruction,^{artnoyanceor injury, to} any person lawfully employed, be^{punished with} simple imprisonment for a term^{whichmay extend to} one month or with hne^{which may extend to two} hundred mpees, or with both; and^ifsuch disobedience causes or trends to cause^{danger to} human life, health or safet5r, or causes or^{tends to} cause a riot or affray, shal1 be^punishedwith imprisonment of either description for a term^which

I I I

(.)

may extcnd to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand mpees, or with both. Whercas, Section - 29O of IPC dea-ls with punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for, ald as per u,hicl.r whocver commits a public n-uisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Codc, shall be punished with fine which may extend to tu,o hundred mpees. The alleged public nuisance is consequence of violation of the orders. When the principal offence under Section - 188 of IPC itself cannot be taken cognizance by tl're Court, the consequent alleged public nuisancc punishable under Section - 290 of IpC cannot be maintarned. Further, the contents of the charge sheet are lacking the said ingredients. Thereforc, applying the principle laid down in the above said two judgments ald in view of the above said discussion, the proceedings in C.C.No.389 of 2Ol9 are liable to be quashed in exercise of powcrs under Secfion - 482 of Cr.P.C."

¶64

As discussed supra, this Court vide order dated 07.O3.2024 in Crl.P.No.2574 of 2024 quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.l to 7 considering the aforesaid principle.

¶65

¶66

In the light of the same,^{the present Criminal Petition} is allowed and the^proceedings in^{C.C. No.389 of 2Ol9} pending on the file of the I Additional Judicial^{Magistrate of} First Class, at Gadwal, are hereby^{quashqdagainst the} petitioners herein - accused Nos.11 to^19'

¶67

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions, if any, pending}

¶68

in the Criminal Petition sha1l^{stand closed.}

¶69

//TRUE^COPY//

¶70

Sd/. T.^TIRUMA DEVI ASSISTANT E 'TRAR .,/

¶71

SECTION^OFFICER

¶72

To,

¶73

The Court^{of I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum-First Additional} Judicial^Magistrate "iF;t"t"Ci";;^{it ca-owat' JosulambaGadwal} district

¶74

2 The Station^{House Officer, Ghattu Police Station' Jogulamba Gadwal District} a Two CCs^{to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶75