The court ruled that proceedings under Section 188 IPC cannot be initiated without a complaint from a public servant, leading to quashment of the case against the accused.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [in short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Crime No. 72 of 2020 on the file of Chilakaluripet Town Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences under Section 188 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [in short ‘IPC’] and Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and Sections 19-A, 211 and 212 of Ordinance No. 2/2020 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Amendment Act, 1994.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) On 12/13.03.2020 at about 1.30 a.m., while the Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff was on night rounds to prevent any untoward incidents with regard to ensuing Municipal Elections, and while they were checking the vehicles, at Patha Santha, Narasaraopet Road, Chilakaluripet Town, they found a car bearing No. AP 39 AB 2444 and Accused No. 1 sitting in the said vehicle. On seeing the Police, Accused No. 1 perturbed and tried to flee away. Police caught hold him and on questioning, he disclosed his identity particulars and confessed that he is a resident of Endugumpalem Village, Nadendla Mandal; that he and his father were working as Sub-Contractors in Panchayat Raj Department of Chilakaluripet; that he was a party worker of Telugu Desam Party. He stated that Accused No. 2 asked him to distribute the same to the voters in view of the Municipal Elections. He also opened the dickey of the car and showed them 83 bottles of 180 ml Green Choice Whisky each.

(b) When Accused No. 1 was asked as to whether he had permission or licence to keep the bottles with him, he replied that he was not having such things. Then, the S.I. of Police seized the liquor bottles and the car bearing No. AP 39 AB 2444 in which the said bottles were kept, from the possession of Accused No. 1, arrested Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for violation of Election Code and registered the present crime.

Grounds Sought for Quashment

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of said crime against them, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed the present petition on the following grounds:

(a) The present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as prima facie ingredients are not made out against the accused.

(b) The Police with the pressure of local MLA and her husband, preferred to give a false report against the accused attributing false allegations without any iota of material against the accused.

(c) The Petitioners had never been in possession of the alleged liquor and Petitioner No. 2 never cooperated to Petitioner No. 1 either to possess the liquor or to distribute the same to anybody.

(d) The alleged confession of Accused No. 1 before the Police is not valid in the eye of law and the confession itself is false. Basing on the inadmissible confession, Petitioner No. 2 was falsely implicated in the case.

(e) Petitioner No. 2 filed a nomination for ZPTC, Nadendla Mandal and though MLA and her husband warned him to withdraw the nomination and as Petitioner No. 2 has not withdrawn the nomination, this false case was foisted against the petitioner.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that the present complaint was lodged based on the police proceedings, which is not tenable under law. He would further submit that Accused No. 2 and the father of Accused No. 1 were contesting members in ZPTC elections and to eliminate them from the contest, the present case was foisted against the Petitioners. It is also stated that the case against Accused No. 2 was registered only based on the confession of Accused No. 1, which is not valid in the eye of law. He would thus contend that the continuation of proceedings against the Peti