Allowed

Muthyala Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Feb 2025CRLP/2816/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, accused in a case for burning an effigy and obstructing traffic during an election protest, sought quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 188, 290 and 341 r/w 34 IPC and Section 125 RP Act. Relying on State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the court quashed all proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 5 in C.C. No. 266 of 2024 before JMFC (Pro & Exc), Nizamabad, quashed.

Muthyala Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t32571

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR-TTE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE TWENry SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWo THoUSAND AND TWENry ive--^'

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

Between:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI TION NO: 2816 0F 202s

¶7

Muthyala Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Reddy, S/o Dever BiSl["tAJii; ''il'r.ri +:rosr]b, 's"?r",Viri"ltl,1flElfi?lryriff i, il:::.,,,i,?:?

¶8

' BS8lEdfailJ;,t#,3ilqifr'^{Ase 38 vears, occ Asricurture R/o} H No e-20, J. Arepa y Nagendra Babu, S/o'Nagesh, Aqe. 33 .;6?'r,'e**1,;uUif tfl ,',ffi ,,;:'Hl,;fl ,,ilfl#.,,-..,"#

¶9

Baddi@ Baddam Avini *s s M a n d a r

¶10

i ?fi,n

¶11

F r.iiE" tI niJ E i 6^"r 13 i L ii:" h,il,?ixL # "", 3 f, "$ill AND ...PET|T|ONERS/ACCUSED No. ^HHi:, 1 TO s

¶12

1 llp-_Slqlq of .Tetangana, Rep. by its pubtic prosecut

¶13

,g[i*:*pf ii:=,",[{rh=T',x#ypfealf#1,',:j,'I,,H::,

¶14

p et iti o n u n d e r S e ct i o n ! ? g_ 9l^r ryri, r," ffi ::I'*TJ:JffI:#IllJ: in the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimi#t Fetition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records,10 qrrrf, ine pio"ceeOings against the petitioners in c c No' 266 or 2024. on the fire or tn" .rroiJirr rr,r;;;;ti;t;'FiH'iil=.Jilli Exc) Nizamabad, in the interest of;usticJ "ro

¶15

r.A. NO:2O F 2025

¶16

Petition under section 4g2 0r cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances or Grounds ot c'-il"I'p'.itition, the Hign c",;#;b. ;l3::I',,,ff:liiilfl:I con necrio n w'n c. c ; r$l?"rtl?: ;',i:,,?"" :?:;:"1:: ;: lffi :til] Class (Pro and Exc) Nizamabad, p.noi"g oi"po.;] #quasn petition.

¶17

This^petition Grounds of Criminat "oring_ol petitio-n^{for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum} of 1ni^{u.oon f,"lrin!-itJ"rgumentsof Sri p.} Subash, Advocate for the petitioners and the of sri iir,ur1",. Rao Veeramara, rearned fi1t[lixi"1#ii:1:,. " " ue n a rr oi tn e n"ip J' i',,i r'r " Lna *on"'Jpil;;;; ;",.

¶18

The Court made the foilowing: ORDER

¶19

I I

¶20

HOMBLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI

¶21

CRIMINA L PET ITION No.28 16 ot 2025

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Petitioners, rvho are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to S, in c.c.No.266 ot 2024 pending on the fire of learned Judiciar Magistrate of First class (Pro & Exc ) Nizamabad, registered for the offences under sections 188' 290 and 341 rrw 34 0f rpc and section 125 0f Representation of porice Act, are seeking to quash the proceedings against them.

¶24

Heard Mr. p.Subash, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veerama,a, rearned Additionar pubric prosecutor appearing for the respondent_State and perused the record.

¶25

Case of the prosecution is that on 27.11.2023, the Complainant received credible information about peopre burning an effigy of sri. Harish Rao, Hon'ble Minister of Hearth and Finance, at Bada Bheemgar chowrasta in Bheemgar, without prior permission from the Erection commission. The comprainant and his team went to the rocation and found congress party members obstructing public vehicles, shouting slogans like ,,Congress Zindabad" and^,,Harish Rao Down Down,, while burning the effigy. This action viorated the erection code and provoked crashes between parties. Basing on the said compraint, a case in crime No.1g7 0f 2023 was registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5. After compretion of

¶26

¶27

¶28

investigation, charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and the case was numbered as C.C. No. 266 ol 2024 for the aforesaid offences.

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that though the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them, they have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners have not violated any rules and model of conduct relating to elections. He further submits that section 195(1)(a)(1) of cr.P.c. bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under section 188 of lPC, unless there is a written complaint by public servant concerned for contempUviolation of his lawful orders. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶30

On the other hand, learned Additional Public^prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have also been charged with the offences other than 1gg of lPC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has righfly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners, basing on the final report filed by the Police, as such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one without authority of Law. He further submitted that the truth or othenrrrise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶31

For the sake of convenience, Section 1gg of lpC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.

¶32

¶33

¶34

Disobedience to order duty promulgated by public servant _ Whoever, knowing that, by an order promitgated Ly a pubtic servant lavvfully empowered to promulgate such ordel, he is'directeo to abslain from a ceiain act, or to take ceftain order with certain propetly in his possess/o, or Ltnder his management, disobeys such direction, shatt, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person tavvfutty employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one nonth or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tren(ls to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends lo cause a riot or affray, sharr be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

¶35

Prosecution for contempt of lavvful authority of public seuants, for offences against pubtic justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence (1)NoCourtsshall take cognizance_

¶36

(.a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to I gg (both inclusive)of the tndian penal Code (45 of 1860), or

¶37

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

¶38

(iii) of any criminar conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on rhe complaint in writing of the pubtic seuant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate...

¶39

(b)(i)of any offence punishabte under any of the fo owing sections of the lndian Penat Code (45 of 1860), namety, section" tii to 196 (both inclusive), 199 2OO, 205 to 211 (both iictusive) and Z)a, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Coufi, or

¶40

(ii)of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a documei produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Courl, or

¶41

(ii!o.f any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub_ctause 1i1 ir sl6-l1su"" ,,,,.

¶42

Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that Section 195(1)(a)(1) of crp.c. bars the court from taking cognizance of anytffence punishabre under section 1gB of rpc, unress there

¶43

¶44

is a written compraint by pubric servant concerned for contempuvioration of his -j laMul orders. ln the present case, basing on the complaint lodged by the L respondenrde facfo comprainant, who is not a competent person, present crime was registered and cognizance was taken by the rearned Magistrate. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence under section 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed.

¶45

B. ln the judgment of Stafe of Karnataka v. Hemareddyr, at paragraph

¶46

No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶47

" We'agree with the view expressed by the teamed Judge and hotd that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Coutl ls,ecessa/y under Section tOSfi1 61 of the Code of Criminat procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub_section, are committed, it is not possrb/e to sprit up and hotd that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned jn Section 1g1(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld".

¶48

(Emphasis supplied)

¶49

lnsofar as other offences i.e., sections 290, 341 rtw 34 of rpc and section 125 of Representation of peopre Act are concerned, as per the judgment of Hon'ble supreme court in Hemareddy's case (supra),it is crear that if the offences formed part of the same transaction of the offences contemplated under section 1g5 0f cr.p.c., it is not possibre to sprit up and hold the prosecution of the petitioners. Hence, the FrR curminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners stands vitiated

¶50

'^{ltn t98t} sc 1+tz

¶51

¶52

and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts ^ abuse of process of law.

¶53

(

¶54

'10. ln view of the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.i to 5 in c.c.No.266 of 2024 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First class (pro &

¶55