Prosecution under IPC 188 requires a complaint from the concerned public servant; allegations of bribery were unsubstantiated.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.548 of 2024 on the file of XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171(B) r/w 171(E) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 123(1)(A) of the representation of the people act, 1951 (for short ‘RP Act’).

2. Heard Ms.Niharika Ture Rao, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.11.2023 at 19.00 hours, de facto complainant along with his staff while conducting vehicle checking tried to stop a Hyundai i20 car bearing No.AP 23 AG 3719 and Toyota Innova car bearing No.TS 13 G T/R 7153 but the accused persons did not stop, they however chased the car and caught hold of them. When they checked the cars, there were three persons in the Hyundai car and on enquiry they stated their names and that they were transporting money of an amount of two crores from Hayathnagar to Choutuppal with escort of the persons in Innova car. On that Inspector of police taken them into custody and informed superiors and summoned two mediators and conducted confession and seizure panchanama. During confession all the five accused persons confessed that on the instructions of accused No.6, they all together were transporting the said money for election purpose. Hence they seized the cash, phones and the said cars and took possession of all the accused persons and took to the police station. The Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.1323 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 188, 171(B) r/w 171 (E) of IPC and Section 123 (1) (A) of RP Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the offences alleged are false, untenable and illegal and are liable to be quashed. The registration of the impugned FIR for the offence alleged under Section 188 IPC itself is impermissible in law, wherein the Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. mandates that any complaint for offence under Section 188 of IPC is to be filed by the public servant concerned. It is further evident that no complaint in writing has been moved by the public servant concerned as is required under Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. Even assuming the allegations to be true, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners herein confessed that the seized money was being transported for the purpose of distributing the same to the public who attends the meeting. That the said allegation in its entirety does not constitute the ingredient of Section 171-B IPC, wherein the essential ingredient is that persons should have been bribed or any money should have been accepted by the people for such purpose of exercising the electoral franchise. Further, the respondent authorities without examining the tenability of the allegations have mechanically registered the offence under section 123 of the RP Act. It is settled law that section 123 of RP Act would only amount to corrupt practice, providing a cause of action for filing of an election petition under Section 81 read with section 100 and 101 of the RP Act, there can be no penal action initiated by way of criminal prosecution. Except the confession statements, no material was collected duri