THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4412 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. 7 and 9 in C.C.No.444 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Gadwal, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 290 of Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that Sri Nithya Pujaiah, PC 1864 of Gadwal Town Police Station lodged complaint on 30.07.2018 at 14:30 hours, stating that when he along with his staff were performing ‘blue colt’ mobile patrolling duty, at about 12.00 p.m., the congress party workers conducted motor bike rally by using D.J sound system on the main roads of Gadwal Town and causing disturbance to public peace. On their enquiry, they revealed that the congress party workers did not take any prior permission from the competent authority to conduct rally and to use D.J sound system. Basing on the said complaint the police registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 290 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.444 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal.

3. Heard Sri Md.Arshad Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and baseless. As per averments made by respondent in the complaint it clearly shows that only because petitioner/accused No.9 with the support of accused No.10, have committed the offence. From the above said statement it is clear that an inference can be drawn that petitioners have neither violated law nor involved in any kind of public nuisance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that under Section 195 (a)(1) of Cr.P.C., only a complaint can be filed by a public servant. He further submitted that under Section 155 (2) of Cr.P.C., no police shall investigate the non cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint do not constitute the offence against the petitioners, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against them.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

7. In view of the above rival submissions, it is appropriate to extract the relevant provisions of I.P.C and Cr.P.C., which reads as under:.

8. Section 188 of the I.P.C:

“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 k