Cognizance of offences under IPC Sections 188 and 341 requires a written complaint from a public servant, and police charge sheets cannot suffice, resulting in quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[In short ‘Cr.P.C’] is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.1506 of 2019 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur District.

2. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the State.

The crux of the case is, as follows;

3. A report dated 25.03.2019 was given by the M.P.D.O., Prattipadu stating that he was the in-charge of Model Code of Conduct team of Prattipadu Assembly Constituency; that on 25.03.2019 barricades were erected on the main road on the occasion of road show being conducted by the President of Janasena party i.e., Sri Pawan Kalyan violating the Election Code of Conduct, which caused obstruction of the vehicular traffic; that Accused having taken permission for road show conducted meeting, thereby committed the offences under Sections 341 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. [for short ‘ I.P.C’]

4. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 341 of IPC with the following allegations:

“In view of forthcoming of General Elections, 2019, the M.P.D.O., Prattipadu i.e., the Complainant, was appointed as Incharge of Model Code of Conduct team of Prattipadu. The accused having taken permission for road show, instead of that organized Janasena Party Meeting by placing barricades on the main road and thereby wrongfully restrained public vehicle traffic from 1.00 pm to 05.30 pm without any permission of Election Commission of India while the Model Code of Conduct is in force. The Complainant observed the same and captured the videos with the assistance of Sri Gopi Sai, Videographer, and represented a report.”

5. Basing on such report, the Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.58 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 188 of IPC of Prattipadu Police Station. The Police have visited the scene of offence, drafted the rough sketch, examined the witnesses i.e., the Complainant and the Police Personnel, who assisted the Complainant. After completion of the investigation, the Police laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 188 of IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of I.P.C., basing on a Charge sheet filed by the Police. He would contend that the procedure contemplated under Section 195 (1) (a) (1) of the Cr.P.C., stipulates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the Public Servant concerned or of some other Public Servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, and on there being clear violation of the procedure that has been contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the even if entire accusation in the charge sheet is accepted as gospel truth, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC. Hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that the procedure followed by the Court in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC is not in accordance with law. She further submits that the contentions raised in the present Petition are all disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice or violation of sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting invocatio