ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANARAO, J.

Criminal Petition No.1616 of 2025 has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the BNSS challenging the chargesheet filed in C.C.No.828 of 2020 on the file of the learned IIAdditional Judicial First- Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam for the alleged offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the I.P.C and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, the Act in Crime No.146/2020 of Inaguduru Police Station.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station filed a purported complaint under Section 190(1) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Cr.P.C. Whereas based on the occurrence report prepared by L.W.2 in the laptop of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station, L.W.2 had registered the occurrence report as a case in FIR No.146 of 2020 under Section 188 of ‘the I.P.C’ and Section 3 of ‘the Act.,’ on 13.06.2020 and investigated into. L.W.2 is the Head Constable of Inaguduru Police Station. L.W.3, the Sub-Inspector of Police, had taken up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared a sketch and examined L.Ws.1 & 2 by recording their statements. L.W.3 later had issued notices to the Petitioners/Accused on 26.06.2020 and received explanations from them. After completion of the investigation, it was mentioned in the complaint that L.W.3 filed chargesheet. Whereas the Sub-Inspector of Police filed the case as a complaint under Sections 190(1) and 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Thus there is no actual complaint filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police strictly in accordance with Section 190 read with 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’

3. It is pertinent to examine the applicability of Section 3 of ‘the Act’, which provides that any person disobeying any regulation or order made under ‘the Act’ shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 188 of ‘the I.P.C.’ However, in the present case, there is no material placed on record to establish that any valid regulation or order issued under ‘the Act’ was in force on the date of the alleged offence, i.e., 13.06.2020. The Government Order G.O.R.T.No.211, which may have formed the basis for invoking the provisions of ‘the Act’, had expired on 23.03.2020. Therefore, the invocation of Section 3 of ‘theAct’ appears to be legally unsustainable.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

6. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.828/2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam is liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’?"

7. Ms. M.Nikitha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein at paragraph Nos.28 & 29, it is held as under:

“28. Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 IPCor abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutio