Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1448 (TS)

Shaik Majeed Mujahid v. State of Telangana

2025-11-11

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.1325 of 2021, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 353 and 285 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005. 2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 28.05.2021 at 11:30 hours, when the complainant, who is a Pro Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagtial Rural Police Station, along with other police personnel, were performing lock down duties and stopping unnecessarily moving vehicles in lock down time, at that time, the petitioner/accused No.1 came there by riding his white Honda Activa without number plate and disobeyed the orders promulgated by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 11.05.2021 and knowingly violated the quarantine rue issued against spreading of Corona virus disease under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and also the Disaster Management Act, 2005. When the complainant stopped the accused and asked to show his vehicle documents and any pass to move in the lock down time, the accused did not show any valid documents pertaining to the said vehicle. When the complainant asked the accused to park the vehicle beside the road, the accused refused her words and started arguing with her in aggression, enraged on her by throwing his motorcycle on the road by using criminal force and tried to set ablaze to his motorcycle by opening the petrol cap which would cause endanger to human life and also obstructed the complainant in performing her legitimate duties. As such, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 188, 353, 285 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and a case in crime No.249 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner and subsequently, the same was got numbered as C.C.No.1325 of 2021, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the petitioner is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the petitioner is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant, who is not a competent person, the present FIR is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the offence under Section 3 of the Act shall be deemed to have been committed under Section 188 of IPC. When Section 188 of IPC warrants filing of a private complaint, the same restriction applies to Section 3 of the Act also. Since the prime offence under Section 188 of IPC is barred by Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy , AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein, at paragraph No.8, it is held as follows: “ We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld.” (Emphasis supplied) Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner herein had also been charged with the offences other than 188 of IPC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner 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. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner 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 otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. For the sake of convenience, Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder: “Section 188 of IPC:- 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 to tender 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.” “Section 195 of Cr.P.C:- Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to 5 documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate... (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (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 document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii).” 8. Having heard both sides and perused the material on record, it is evident that the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC have been initiated basing on the complaint made by the de facto complainant, who is a Police Officer, but not on the basis of complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, as is required under Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 188 of IPC are liable to be quashed. Insofar as the other offences i.e., Sections 353 and 285 of IPC and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act are concerned, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemareddy’s case (supra) , it is clear that if the offences form part of the same transaction of the offences contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of the petitioner. Hence, the FIR culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner stands vitiated and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.1325 of 2021, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District, are hereby quashed. 10. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.