Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1369 (TS)

Syed Khaja Ziauddin v. State of Telangana

2025-11-03

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
ORDER : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.10165 of 2023, pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 290 and 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 21/76 of the City Police Act (for short ‘CP Act’). 2. Heard Mr.M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.11.2023 at about 16:30 hrs, a complaint was received from Mr.Mohd Azhar Yakubuddin, Senior Inspector, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Secunderabad. He states that on the same day he and his staff were deputed as FST-2B Team by the Returning Officer for the 68-Yakutpura Assembly Constituency. They were present at a nomination rally authorised for Mr.Syed Khaja Ziauddin (AIMIM Convener) under permission No.22AC39609 dated 04.11.2023 issued by the Returning Officer of 68-Yakutpura. The rally started from Bada Bazar X-Road around 13:00 hrs and reached Santoshnagar water tank. It was observed that although the permission was only for a nomination rally, the organizers played music (“Maria” in an auto trolley) and obstructed the free flow of traffic. The incident was also recorded on camera. It is contended this constitutes a violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for elections as well as the specific instructions issued in the permission issued by the Returning Officer. Basing on the same, the present complaint was lodged. Therefore, respondent No.2 requested the Station House Officer, P.S.IS Sadan to take action against the petitioner. 4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses and collected the CC footage. On consideration of the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. 5. It is relevant to mention that, a coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.14744 of 2024 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners therein would amount to an abuse of process of law and quashed the proceedings against them. The petitioner herein also stands on the same footing and also entitled for the same relief. 6. The petitioner herein also stands on the same footing and also entitled for the same relief. 6. In the said case the offences alleged are also similar i.e., under Sections 188, 341 and 290 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 21/76 and 67 of CP Act. The allegation was that they organized a rally in celebration of the accused No.1 winning the election as MLA. The present case pertains to the allegation as to the rally taken out for filing nomination. 7. It is apt to note that Section - 188 of IPC which deals with ‘disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant’ and the same is extracted as under: “188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant .—Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take 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 person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall 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. Explanation. —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. Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, 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 defined in this section.” 8. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.” 8. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor , Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, learned Single Judge held as under: “5) …. the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same…….. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its un- sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition.” 9. The learned Single Judge in Crl.P.No.14744 of 2024 has further relied upon Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District , Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [3. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335] , and has quashed the proceedings by holding that the Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings in the said C.C. for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed. 10. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335] , and has quashed the proceedings by holding that the Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings in the said C.C. for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed. 10. In the instant case, the witnesses never said that the petitioner voluntarily restrained or obstructed any person including them so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed. Therefore, the contents of the complaint and the statements of the aforesaid witnesses lack the ingredients of wrongful restraint. None of the witnesses stated about the alleged nuisance committed by the petitioner which caused any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public. Without considering the said aspect, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein for the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate took cognizance. Further, the contents of the charge sheet lack ingredients of the offences alleged under Section 21/76 of CP Act against the petitioner. 11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court applying the same analogy as in Crl.P.No.14744 of 2024, is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner herein is an abuse of process of law and hence are liable to be quashed. 12. Therefore, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.10165 of 2023, pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner herein - accused alone are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.