Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 370 (AP)

Paiaavula Keshavulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2013-04-30

R.KANTHA RAO

body2013
ORDER : R. Kantha Rao, J. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. 2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in CC No. 96 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, Ananthapur District against the Petitioner/accused No. 2. The petitioner/A2 is said to be the Member of Legislative Assembly of Uravakonda Constituency. The allegation made against him and the other accused was that they conducted a public meeting at Gandhi Chowk, Gooty, which is located on National Highway No. 7, at 6.00 p.m., on 1.2.2009, contrary to the orders, allegedly promulgated by the Director General of Police. The petitioner was charge-sheeted along-with the others for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The charge-sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station. 3. Section 188 of the IPC deals with disobedience to orders duly promulgated by the public servant. Section 283 of the IPC deals with the offence of danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation. In the instant case, even according to the prosecution, there was a permission granted by the competent authority to the petitioner/accused and others to hold a public meeting, but at a different place. It is alleged against the petitioner and others that by conducting a public meeting at a different place other than the permitted place, situated on National Highway, they have caused obstruction to the passage of the vehicles and the general public. The said offence does not attract the ingredients of Section 283 of the IPC since by their act, the petitioner and others, have not caused any damage or obstruction in a public place. In any event, the main offence is under Section 188 IPC and the offence alleged under Section 283 IPC is only incidental to the main offence. The main offence, as already stated, is allegedly disobedience to the orders duly promulgated by the Director General of Police. In any event, the main offence is under Section 188 IPC and the offence alleged under Section 283 IPC is only incidental to the main offence. The main offence, as already stated, is allegedly disobedience to the orders duly promulgated by the Director General of Police. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., lays down that no Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Here, there is no complaint filed by any public servant. The Sub-Inspector of Police filed the charge-sheet. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206 , the Supreme Court held that the prosecution under Section 182 must be on a complaint in writing by the Tahsildar (public servant). In view of that absolute bar against the Courts for taking cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 182 of the IPC, except in the manner provided by Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., the judgment equally applies to the offence under Section 188 also. In this case, there is no complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Therefore, in view of the bar under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognisance of the offence punishable under Section 198 IPC on the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooti Police Station. Therefore, the cognisance is taken contrary to the specific bar envisaged under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. 4. Further, the witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecution are only the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Thadipatri and two Sub-Inspectors of Police of Gooty P.S. Since no other witnesses, complaining the inconvenience caused by the petitioner or the other accused, were cited by the police as witnesses, continuing the case would be a futile exercise. 5. For the foregoing reasons, in my considered view, continuing the trial of the offence, alleged against the petitioner/ A2 in CC No. 96 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, Ananthapur District, is nothing but abuse of process of law and they would ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. 5. For the foregoing reasons, in my considered view, continuing the trial of the offence, alleged against the petitioner/ A2 in CC No. 96 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, Ananthapur District, is nothing but abuse of process of law and they would ultimately result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the entire proceedings in the above CC No. 96 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, Ananthapur against the petitioner/accused No. 2 are quashed. 6. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed.