Charges against the petitioner were quashed for lack of evidence supporting the alleged violations, emphasizing the need for valid grounds in prosecutions related to conduct during public events.

ORDER :

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.10165 of 2023, pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 290 and 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 21/76 of the City Police Act (for short ‘CP Act’).

2. Heard Mr.M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.11.2023 at about 16:30 hrs, a complaint was received from Mr.Mohd Azhar Yakubuddin, Senior Inspector, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Secunderabad. He states that on the same day he and his staff were deputed as FST-2B Team by the Returning Officer for the 68-Yakutpura Assembly Constituency. They were present at a nomination rally authorised for Mr.Syed Khaja Ziauddin (AIMIM Convener) under permission No.22AC39609 dated 04.11.2023 issued by the Returning Officer of 68-Yakutpura. The rally started from Bada Bazar X-Road around 13:00 hrs and reached Santoshnagar water tank. It was observed that although the permission was only for a nomination rally, the organizers played music (“Maria” in an auto trolley) and obstructed the free flow of traffic. The incident was also recorded on camera. It is contended this constitutes a violation of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for elections as well as the specific instructions issued in the permission issued by the Returning Officer. Basing on the same, the present complaint was lodged. Therefore, respondent No.2 requested the Station House Officer, P.S.IS Sadan to take action against the petitioner.

4. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses and collected the CC footage. On consideration of the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein.

5. It is relevant to mention that, a coordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.14744 of 2024 while considering the same situation, categorically observed that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners therein would amount to an abuse of process of law and quashed the proceedings against them. The petitioner herein also stands on the same footing and also entitled for the same relief.

6. In the said case the offences alleged are also similar i.e., under Sections 188, 341 and 290 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 21/76 and 67 of CP Act. The allegation was that they organized a rally in celebration of the accused No.1 winning the election as MLA. The present case pertains to the allegation as to the rally taken out for filing nomination.

7. It is apt to note that Section - 188 of IPC which deals with ‘disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant’ and the same is extracted as under:

“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 imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if suc