THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2108 of 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.619 of 2023, of Bodhan Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) and Section 129 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Bodhan Police Station, Nizamabad District, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and other accused stating that he has deputed as Flying squad and Team In-charge for Bodhan Assembly constituency for TSLA-2023, and the petitioners and accused No.3 are law officers appointed by the Government of Telangana. Though they are bound by appointing rules under Cr.P.C and also service rules against such standing rules and regulations, they are regularly participating in the Election Canvas along with one M.L.C. Smt. Kavitha and Bodhan BRS MLA Candidate violating the Election Model Code of Conduct without any permission. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.619 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Section 188 of the IPC and Section 129 of the Act.

3. Heard Sri V. Rohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and Section 188 of the IPC do not attract to the present case, as the complaint has to be given by an authorized public officer, but in the present case, the complaint is given by an advocate to the Returning Officer, who, in turn, ordered respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Further, Section 129 of the Act is also not applicable to the petitioners as they are not Election Officers. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are baseless, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against them.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecution appearing for respondent No.1 has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

6. Section 188 of the I.P.C reads as follows:

Section 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 persons 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 such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation: It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Illustration: An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the of