Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 209 (TS)

Mankena Chinna Koti Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-04-01

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.458 of 2023 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Hyderabad against the petitioner herein - accused No.2. 3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in the aforesaid C.C.No.458 of 2023. The offence alleged against him is under Sections-188 and 269 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 57 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. 4. On the complaint, dated 11.04.2021 lodged by respondent No.2, the Police, Thirumalagiri (S) have registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2021 against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. In the said complaint, dated 11.04.2021, respondent No.2 alleged that as per the instructions of Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirumalagiri, he, along L.Ws.2 and 3, were conducting patrolling duty bye-elections of Nagarjuna Sagar Assembly Constituency at Megya Thanda Village. At about 21.00 hours, they found the petitioner and other accused leaders belongs to TRS party and organized campaign of bye-elections without taking precautions prescribed by both the Central and State Government as per Covid-19 in terms of G.O.No.68 of 2021, dated 27.03.2021 and they have not wore the face masks. They have not maintained social distance. They have conducted the said rally and election campaign negligently. 5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as L.W.1. Sri Yara Krishna, Police Constable as L.W.2;Sri Shayamala Varma, Videographer as L.W.3; Sri Kondal Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police as L.W.4. L.W.1 reiterated the contents of the complaint, dated 11.04.2021. L.Ws.2 and 3 also stated in the same lines 6. The allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are that he along with others have conducted campaign without adhering Covid-19 instructions/guidelines issued by the Central Government and also stated vide G.O.Mos.No.68, dated 27.03.2021. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. 7. As discussed supra in the present case, the investigating officer did not examine any independent witness to say that the accused has committed the aforesaid offences. 8. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. 7. As discussed supra in the present case, the investigating officer did not examine any independent witness to say that the accused has committed the aforesaid offences. 8. It is apposite to extract the relevant provisions of IPC, ED Act and DM Act, which are as under: INDIAN PENAL CODE “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 impris- onment 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.” “ 269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life .—Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.” “270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life .—Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT “57. Penalty for contravention of any order regarding requisitioning .-If any person contravenes any order made under section 65, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.” 9. In view of the above, the legislative intent behind Section - 195 Cr.P.C. is that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by person actuated by malice or frivolity of deposition and to save the time of the court being wasted by endless prosecution. In the absence of complaint by the public servant concerned under Section - 195 Cr.P.C., the offence under Section - 188 of IPC against accused cannot be sustained. 10. In order to convict any person for commission of offence punishable under Section - 188 IPC, the Court has to satisfy itself that the accused had not only violated the order promulgated by a public servant but also the accused had actual knowledge of issuance of such order. In the case on hand, there is no whisper in the charge sheet that the accused had knowledge of the order. 11. In Bhoop Singh Tyagi v. State , [2002 Cri.L.J. 2872] , the Delhi High Court held that a person booked under Section - 188 of IPC must have actual knowledge of public servant's order requiring him to do or abstain from doing some act. It was further held that acquiring or gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite and any proof of general notification promulgated by a public servant would not satisfy the requirement. 12. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. It was further held that acquiring or gaining of such knowledge is a pre-requisite and any proof of general notification promulgated by a public servant would not satisfy the requirement. 12. 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, the learned Single Judge held as under: “5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that 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. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. 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 unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1 st accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition.” 13. In 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 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335] , more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. 14. A perusal of the said G.O.Ms. A perusal of the said G.O.Ms. No.13 would reveal that it was issued by the Government of Telangana in exercise of the powers conferred under Section - 2 of the E.D. Act, framing certain regulations called as ‘The Telangana Epidemic Diseases (COVID- 19) Regulations, 2020’. Clauses - 16 and 17 of the regulation in the said G.O. are relevant, which are as under: “16. Any person, institution, organization violating any provision of these Regulations shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). The empowered officers may penalize any person, institution, organization found violating provisions of these Regulations or any further orders issued by Government under these Regulations. 17. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under these Regulations.” 15. In continuation of the said G.O.Ms.No.13, the State Government has also issued G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 23.03.2020, framing some more regulations to ensure social distancing to restrict the spread of COVID-19, to be followed by all Shops, establishments etc. In the said G.O., it is also mentioned that violation of the social distancing norms shall be punishable under Sections - 188, 269 and 270 of IPC. 16. A perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 30.05.2021 would reveal that it was issued in exercise of powers conferred under the Disaster Management Act,2005, on account of pandemic situation, the Government has extended the lockdown with certain modifications across the State of Telangana from 31.05.2021 to 09.06.2021 by issuing directives to the concerned to implement the instructions therein strictly. Even in the said G.O., instruction Nos.11 and 12 under the caption “General Instructions” is relevant to extract, which are as under: “11. Any violation of the aforesaid instructions shall result in prosecution under Sections 51 to 60 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 188 of IPC as well as other applicable laws. 12. No suit or legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under these regulations.” 17. As discussed supra, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as L.W.1, police constable as L.W.2 and Sub-Inspector of Police as L.W.4. L.W.5-Investigating Officer filed charge sheet. In the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer did not mention that petitioner herein had knowledge of the order promulgated by the public servant. As discussed supra, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as L.W.1, police constable as L.W.2 and Sub-Inspector of Police as L.W.4. L.W.5-Investigating Officer filed charge sheet. In the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer did not mention that petitioner herein had knowledge of the order promulgated by the public servant. Further, as already discussed above, the police has not even examined any independent witness to show that the petitioner did not wear any mask and that he did not maintain physical distance of three feet etc., and that on account of his acts, the innocent people gathered at one place causing chance of spreading Corona Virus to the society in Megya Thanda Village. 18. It is specific contention of the petitioner herein that he was the Member of the Legislative Council and he was falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the aforesaid offences. There is no evidence against the petitioner herein. Both L.Ws.1 and 2 except stating that the petitioner herein is also present, they have not stated any specific allegations or overt acts against the petitioner. 19. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that on the complaints lodged by head constable of P.S. Thirumalagiri, the Station House Officer, P.S. Thirumalagiri has registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2021. As per the complaint the time of incident is 11.00 A.M, place of incident Godumadaka Village, date of incident is 11.04.2021. On the complaint of the very same head constable, the very police have registered a case in Crime No.101. of 2021, date of incident is 10.04.2021, at 12 noon and place of incident is Srirampally Village. Likewise on the complaint of MPDO, in charge of MCC team, the very same police have registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2021, dated of incident is 11.04.2021, time is 9.00 P.M and place of incident is Megya Thanda. In all the three complaints, the allegations are almost same, except the date, time and place of incident. 20. Moreover, Section - 3 of the E.D. Act envisages that any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of IPC. This Court has already held that the petitioners have not committed any offence, much less the offences under Section - 188 of IPC. 21. 20. Moreover, Section - 3 of the E.D. Act envisages that any person disobeying any regulation or order made under this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of IPC. This Court has already held that the petitioners have not committed any offence, much less the offences under Section - 188 of IPC. 21. Section - 52 of the D.M. Act prescribes punishment for making a false claim for obtaining any relief, assistance, repair, reconstruction or other benefits consequent to disaster from any officer of the authorities mentioned therein. In the present case, there is no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner of having made any false claim, let alone for obtaining any relief, assistance, repair, reconstruction or other benefits consequent to disaster from any officer of the Government or other authority. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the allegation in respect of the offence punishable under Section - 52 of the D.M. Act cannot be sustained against the accused. The facts of the present case fall within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal 4 Therefore, continuation of proceedings in C.C. No.457 of 2023 against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and applying the principle laid down in the above said judgments, the proceedings in C.C.No.458 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein-accused No.2 alone. 23. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.