Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1081 (AP)

K. Satya Narayana v. State of A. P.

2011-11-30

G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

body2011
ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (For short, 'A-1 and A-2') under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Summary Trial Case No. 47 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sanga Reddy, Medak district registered for offence punishable under Section 188 IPC. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A-1 and A-2, the Respondent No.2 is the Complainant in the Summary Trial Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Summary Trial Case hereafter. 3. Basing the prosecution version i.e. on a report given by a constable of Ramachandrapuram police station the case was registered in Crime No.147 of 2009 on its file in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188 IPC on the ground that A-1 being Ex.MLA of Bharatiya Janatha Party along with his associates including A-2 without obtaining any prior permission from concerned authority violated the election code issued in connection with the assembly elections then held by canvassing on National High Way No. 9 in Ramachandrapuram near Nagulamma temple by using bands on 5-4-2009 at 10.30 hours and A-1 and A-2 are liable to be punished for the alleged offence. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 that Section 188 IPC is not tenable in view of non-compliance of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. 5. Heard the learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 6. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether there are circumstances to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. By virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. the Court should not take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 IPC except on a written complaint given by the complainant. In the present case, admittedly, the corresponding report was filed by the Constable of Ramahandrapuram police station and subsequently the charge-sheet was filed by the concerned Inspector of that police station. Thus, there has been clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. Therefore taking cognizance in the present case is not tenable and accordingly the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Nobody should be prosecuted without the authority of law and doing so would amount to clear abuse of process of law and harassment. Thus, there has been clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. Therefore taking cognizance in the present case is not tenable and accordingly the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Nobody should be prosecuted without the authority of law and doing so would amount to clear abuse of process of law and harassment. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings in Summary Trial Case No. 47 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sanga Reddy, Medak district.