ORDER: ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.315 of 2019, on the Court of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, arising out of FIR No.284 of 2018, dated 23.11.2018, on the file of Malakpet Police Station, under Section 171H of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). 2. Heard Mr. A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1–State. Perused the material on record. 3. On the basis on a complaint dated 23.11.2018, an F.I.R. bearing No.284 of 2018, dated 23.11.2018 came to be registered for an offence under Section 171H of IPC. Further, a charge sheet under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) came to be filed and registered as C.C.No.315 of 2019 before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4. The complaint is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad, which was lodged by one U.Srinivas Rao, Flying Squad Member for Malakpet Assembly Constituency-58. It was averred in the complaint that the complainant was posted as Flying Squad Member of Malakpet Assembly Constituency-58 for General Elections, 2018. That the complainant while performing his duty on 21.11.2018 to 22.11.2018 (8:00 p.m.-8:00 a.m.), found flex banners advertising different schemes with party symbol (car symbol of TRS party) on metro pillars. The total number of banners on the pillars, as listed in the complaint are around 45. It is also averred that it is violation of Model Code of Conduct of General Elections, 2018 and hence, necessary action to be initiated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case pertains to violation of Model Code of Conduct in view of General Elections, 2018. It is further submitted that any violation of Model Code of Conduct would be a violation of a promulgation to do or not to do certain acts by the concerned authorities. It is also submitted that once Model Code of Conduct is in operation with respect to General Elections, any violation if alleged, Section 188 of IPC gets attracted. 6. It is further submitted that any violation of Model Code of Conduct would be a violation of a promulgation to do or not to do certain acts by the concerned authorities. It is also submitted that once Model Code of Conduct is in operation with respect to General Elections, any violation if alleged, Section 188 of IPC gets attracted. 6. It is submitted that the complaint is lodged by a member of the Flying Squad, specifically stating that he was in charge of a particular area and that, while he was conducting routine survey of the area, he found flex banners of a particular party pasted on various metro pillars, which is a violation of promulgation of the Court. Hence, action was sought to be initiated. It is further submitted that Section 171H of IPC cannot independently be made applicable without there being an offence made out under Section 188 of IPC. 7. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that Sections 172 to 188 of IPC are offences which have an umbrella of protection at the time of cognizance, in the sense that complaint is to be made to the Magistrate by the Authority, and it is only upon such a complaint that at the time of taking of cognizance, the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. kicks in. Learned counsel further invited the attention of this Court to Section 171H of IPC and contended that it pertains to violation of Election Code and therefore, it cannot be considered in isolation, as Section 188 of IPC has to be roped in. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that it is not the case of the State that the accused did not take permission. Accused has sought permission from the Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana State, for advertisements of TRS party schemes along with TRS party logos for public support in view of the General Elections. Petitioner is being accused for not seeking permission from the Returning Officer of the Malakpet Assembly Constituency. It is pointed out that once the Chief Electoral Officer granted permission, it is not a requirement to take permission of the Returning Officer. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.315 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Chief Magistrate, if permitted to go on, would be an abusive process of law. 9. It is pointed out that once the Chief Electoral Officer granted permission, it is not a requirement to take permission of the Returning Officer. Hence, the proceedings in C.C.No.315 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Chief Magistrate, if permitted to go on, would be an abusive process of law. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State submitted that petitioner was under an obligation to seek permission from the Returning Officer and the permission sought from the Chief Electoral Officer would not wash away the requirement of the permission to be sought from the Returning Officer. It is further submitted that a case is registered under Section 171H of IPC and that charge sheet is on record, before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, cognizance is taken and no interference is necessitated. 10. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions. 11. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner worked as General Secretary of TRS Party, permission from Chief Electoral Officer for publishing and giving advertisement for Government schemes along with party symbol was obtained, this fact is not disputed. Complaint came to be lodged by a member of the Flying Squad Team of Malakpet Constituency on the ground that flexi banners with different schemes and party symbols were pasted on the metro pillars during the General Elections of 2018. Complainant was a Flying Squad Member for overseeing implementation of Model Code of Conduct during General Elections of 2018. While performing his duty, he came across the flexi banners on various metro pillars and lodged a complaint with Sub Inspector of Police, Malakpet Police Station on 22.11.2018, received at 1:30 p.m. 12. An F.I.R came to be registered under Section 171H of IPC, charge sheet was filed. Cognizance was taken by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the case numbered as C.C.No.315 of 2019. 13. On a perusal of the contents of the charge sheet, it is evident that the accused herein had taken permission from the Chief Electoral Officer for advertisement of TRS party schemes along with TRS party logos and the development during the General Elections 2018. It is contended that the accused did not take permission from Returning Officer for advertisements, they gave order to one Advertising Agency. Section 171H of IPC is alleged. 14. It is trite to extract the contents of Section 171H of IPC. It is contended that the accused did not take permission from Returning Officer for advertisements, they gave order to one Advertising Agency. Section 171H of IPC is alleged. 14. It is trite to extract the contents of Section 171H of IPC. Section 171H of IPC is as follows: “ Illegal payments in connection with an election Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorizes expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate”. 15. On a perusal of Section 171H of IPC, it is evident that whoever, without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate, incurs or authorizes expenses, causes advertisement, circular or publication for promoting or procuring election of such candidate, that person would be punished. The proviso also speaks that an amount not exceeding Rs.10/- without authority, if obtains within 10 days for approval in writing of the candidate shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with authority of the candidate. In other words, the person to be charged under Section 171H of IPC is said to have made illegal payments in connection with advertisement, circular or publication or in any other manner for the purpose of gaining votes. 16. It is not the case of the State that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is with regard to illegal payments. The complaint speaks about the pasting of flexi banners in the name of different schemes, on the metro pillars in violation of Model Code of Conduct. It defies the logic of this Court as to how a complaint which is made for pasting or hanging of flexi banners on metro pillars is said to be an offence under Section 171H of IPC. It defies the logic of this Court as to how a complaint which is made for pasting or hanging of flexi banners on metro pillars is said to be an offence under Section 171H of IPC. The language used in Section 171H of IPC is entirely different to what the complaint seeks to speak of. Be that as it may, even otherwise, going by the contents of the charge sheet, it is observed that accused took permission from the Chief Electoral Officer for advertising the party schemes and party logos and a copy of the permission issued by the Office of Chief Electoral Officer is placed as material evidence. The only grievance is that the permission has not been sought from the Returning Officer, Malakpet Constituency. 17. No clause of the Model Code of Conduct that permission is required from the returning officer is shown. In the absence, this Court does not find any force in the contention advanced on behalf of the State that permission of Returning Officer, Malakpet Constituency, has to be obtained in spite of the permission of the Chief Electoral Officer of the Telangana State. Viewed from the other angle, if it is case of an offence for violation of Model Code of Conduct, the offences cannot stand independently, without there being a violation of an offence under Section 188 of IPC. In other words, Section 188 of IPC, being the offence for violation of promulgation of an order of authority, has to be read with Section 171H of IPC. Once Section 171H of IPC is added along with Section 188 of IPC, the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance kicks in. Section 188 of IPC speaks of an offence for disobedience of the promulgated order by a public servant, Section 171H of IPC is in respect of elections. Violation of a promulgation order i.e., Model Code of Conduct attracts Section 188 of IPC. Be that as it may, it is reflected in the charge sheet that permission from the Chief Electoral Officer was obtained. 18. Having considered the entire factual matrix of the case and the material on record, this Court is of the view that proceedings in C.C.No.315 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, if allowed to continue, would be an abuse of process of law. 18. Having considered the entire factual matrix of the case and the material on record, this Court is of the view that proceedings in C.C.No.315 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, if allowed to continue, would be an abuse of process of law. Proceedings in C.C.No.315 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, qua the petitioner, are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. 19. For reasons aforesaid, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.