ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.,') by the Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 16, 18 and 19, seeking to quash the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 16, 18 and 19 in C.C.No.822 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

2. Sri Bhusarapu Brahma Yesu babu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that LW.1/Village Revenue Officer/Respondent No.2, Allavaram village submitted a report to the Station House Officer, Allavaram Police Station, which was registered a case in Cr.No.28 of 2017 on 06.02.2017 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 188, 341, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For brevity 'the I.P.C') and Section 32 of Police Act is legally unsustainable. It is contended that, as per the mandatory requirement under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “ the Cr.P.C.”), no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the I.P.C. except upon a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, though a report was submitted by the Village Revenue Officer and an F.I.R. was registered, the subsequent investigation and filing of charge sheet by the police is contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. In the absence of a proper complaint as contemplated under law, the continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No. 822 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram are liable to be quashed.

3. Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in refutation of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, would contend that the allegations in the FIR clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It is urged that the Petitioners, being political sympathizers, had deliberately congregated on a public thoroughfare and staged a Rasta Roko, thereby obstructing the free flow of traffic and causing inconvenience to the general public. Such conduct squarely attracts the mischief contemplated under Section 341 of 'the I.P.C.,' inasmuch as the voluntary obstruction of the road constitutes wrongful restraint within the meaning of Section 339 of 'the I.P.C.' Further, the act of forming an unlawful assembly and raising slogans in defiance of lawful authority amounts to disobedience of public order, thereby invoking Section 188 of 'the I.P.C.,' irrespective of whether a specific written order is produced, since the very nature of the act demonstrates conscious disregard of lawful directions intended to preserve public tranquillity. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would therefore submit that the FIR is not bereft of essential ingredients, but rather prima facie establishes the offences alleged, and that the Petitioners cannot seek to quash the proceedings at the threshold by invoking technicalities, as the matter requires full-fledged trial and appreciation of evidence.

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.822 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram 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. 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.,, (2010) 9 SCC 567 wherein at paragraph