ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.2998 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences under Sections 223 and 292 of BNS . 2. Heard Sri Arpith Joy Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 3. The case of prosecution is that the petitioner has used DJ music band without any permission and caused noise pollution and disturbance in the locality. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Principal of St. Pious X Degree and PG College for Women and that she has not committed any such offence to attract Sections 223 and 292 of BNS . He further submitted that the petitioner has advised the concerned participant of the college to obtain necessary permission for using the band and that she has also applied for permission on 16.12.2024 and the event was to be held on 17.12.2024. On 16.12.2024 at 05:00 PM, the said participant along with a lady faculty and attender of the college went to the police station to obtain permission and waited for the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), but the SHO did not turn up till late in the night, hence the ladies returned and the attender of the college waited at the police station. Thereafter, the attender has given the application to the SHO, but the SHO has not endorsed anything on the said application. The attender has not communicated to the petitioner herein that the C.I. has not endorsed on the application and that he has asked the college management to meet him. The college management was under the bona fide impression that the application seeking permission was already submitted to the police. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there is no criminal intention on the part of the petitioner in not obliging the Rules and that the petitioner herein has not committed any such alleged offences. He further submitted that to initiate proceedings under Section 223 BNS , sanction under Section 215 BNS S has to be obtained. In the absence of the same, the proceedings against the petitioner need to be quashed. He further submitted that to initiate proceedings under Section 223 BNS , sanction under Section 215 BNS S has to be obtained. In the absence of the same, the proceedings against the petitioner need to be quashed. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in the present C.C. against the petitioner herein. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that admittedly the petitioner had not taken any permission for using the DJ music band. He further submitted that the permission should be obtained from the Commissioner of Police, which is not done in the present case. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner herein. The petitioner being the head of the institution is liable to be prosecuted. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. Perused the record. 7. The case of the prosecution is that the St. Pious X Degree and PG College for Women, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, has organized a Fest, during which they have used the DJ music with loud speakers, which created noise pollution in the surrounding areas and disturbed the peace in the locality. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that the college management is under the impression that they have submitted the application to the police. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are certain Rules for the sound system to be used within the permissible limits and for using any sound system, permission has to be obtained from the concerned Commissioner of Police as per the Hyderabad City Loud Speakers (Regulation of Use and Licensing) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘the Rules’). Rule 2(1) of the said Rules reads as follows: “2.(1) No person shall install, use or operate, or permit the installation, use or operation of a loudspeaker in any public place or place of public entertainment at any time without obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of Police (hereinafter referred to as the Licensing authority) or from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order or the Divisional Assistant Commissioners of Police, duly authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police.” Thus, necessarily permission has to be obtained from the Commissioner of Police for using any sound system. In the present case, the said permission is not obtained by the institution, to which the petitioner herein is the Principal. 8. The present complaint is filed alleging offences under Sections 223 and 292 BNS . In the present case, the said permission is not obtained by the institution, to which the petitioner herein is the Principal. 8. The present complaint is filed alleging offences under Sections 223 and 292 BNS . When the offence under Section 223 BNS is alleged, the procedure under Section 215 (1)(a) BNS S has to be mandatorily followed. For the sake of reference, Section 215 (1)(a) BNS S is extracted hereunder: “215. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence .- (1) No Court shall take cognizance — (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or (ii) of any abetment of, or 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 or of some other public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do; 9. A bare perusal of the above provision reveals that the complaint has to be lodged only by the public servant in the competent Court and only then, the Court can take cognizance of the same. In the present case, the complaint is filed before the SHO by the police constable. Therefore, it lacks the ingredients of a complaint under Section 2 15 BNSS . The word ‘complaint’ is defined under Section 2 (1)(h) of BNSS , which reads as follows: “2. Definitions – (1) In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) to (g) xxx (h) “Complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.” Therefore, to attract the offence under Section 223 of BNS , a complaint needs to be lodged by the public servant or by the person authorized by the public servant before the competent Court and only then, the Court can take cognizance. In the present case, complaint is lodged by the police constable before the SHO, therefore, no Court can take cognizance of the said offence. 10. In the present case, complaint is lodged by the police constable before the SHO, therefore, no Court can take cognizance of the said offence. 10. Further, the Honourable Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy , AIR 1981 SC 1417 , in paragraph No.8, held thus: “8. 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 s. 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 s. 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld.” Thus, the other offence i.e., 292 BNS also cannot be taken cognizance of against the petitioner. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner herein would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, the proceedings in the present C.C. are liable to be quashed against the petitioner herein. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.2998 of 2024 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at L.B. Nagar, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.