The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioner/sole accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.795 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile Court), Kurnool.

Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.795 of 2024 arising out of Crime No.20 of 2024 registered by Dornipadu Police for the offences under Sections 171-H and 188 of ‘the IPC’. He further submits that the allegations in the complaint are false and that the amount of Rs.50,000/- allegedly carried by the petitioner was only handed over to the temple committee towards renovation works of Ramalayam Temple pursuant to the decision taken by the committee and had no connection with any election activity. Therefore, even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, the ingredients of Section 171-H of ‘the IPC’ are not attracted, as the amount was not used for promoting or procuring the election of any candidate.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of ‘the IPC’ is barred under Section 195 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ unless there is a written complaint by the concerned public servant. In the present case, there is no such complaint and the case is based only on the charge sheet filed by the police. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of ‘the IPC’ and continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.795 of 2024 amounts to abuse of process of law.

Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of investigation disclose prima facie commission of offences under Sections 171-H and 188 of ‘the IPC’, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed resulting in C.C.No.795 of 2024. It is further submits that the question as to whether the amount of Rs.50,000/- was intended for temple renovation or otherwise is a matter of evidence, which requires appreciation during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C’.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be examined at this stage. It is further submits that the allegations and the material available in the charge sheet disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

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

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.795 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile Court), Kurnool, 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’?”

In this regard it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.,¹(2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein at paragraph Nos.28 & 29, it is held that Section 195 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ bars courts from taking cognizance of offences like Section 188 of ‘the IPC’ unless there is a written complaint by the concerned public servant, in order to prevent frivolous or malicious prosecutions and to ensure adherence to the prescribed procedure.