SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 22624

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Vaddiraju Ravichandra – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/11245/2024



The court quashed charges against the petitioner due to lack of sufficient evidence and procedural irregularities, affirming that charges must meet prima facie standards.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 341, 290, 188 - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 123(1) - Criminal Petition filed to quash proceedings against accused for alleged violations during election campaign - The court found no reasonable basis for the charges under Sections 341 and 188, ruling that the charge sheet lacked necessary ingredients of the offences. (Paras 6, 11, 15, 22)

(B) Quashing of Proceedings - The court reiterated that proceedings can be quashed if allegations do not constitute a prima facie case against the accused, emphasizing the necessity of proper investigation and adherence to procedural requirements. (Paras 10, 11, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a candidate, was accused of conducting an election rally without permission, obstructing public and traffic, resulting in charges under multiple sections of the IPC and the R.P. Act.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the proceedings under Sections 341 and 188 of IPC and Section 123(1) of the R.P. Act, citing lack of evidence, but dismissed the petition for the offence under Section 290 of IPC.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the charge sheet contained sufficient evidence for the alleged offences and if the proper legal procedures were followed in initiating the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the charge sheet did not establish a prima facie case for the alleged offences, specifically under Sections 341 and 188 of IPC, and highlighted procedural lapses in the investigation.

Result: Criminal Petition allowed in part, quashing proceedings for certain offences while dismissing for others.

ORAL ORDER :

Heard Mr. D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.632 of 2019 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the said case. The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 341, 290 & 188 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 123 (1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short ‘R.P. Act’).

4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 - Assistant Engineer, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Inthezargunj Police Station registered a case in Crime No.416 of 2018 against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. As per the complaint of respondent No.2, dated 30.11.2018, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and others are that while he was discharging election duty in the capacity of In-charge of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) on 30.11.2018, the petitioner along with his supporters gathered at Bazar Masjid on the road without any permission. Then he along with his subordinates reached there and seen the petitioner and some others conducting the election campaign as he was contesting candidate from Congress Party and making appeals. At the same time, Warangal East TRS candidate, Mr. N. Narender along with his supporters is also campaigning. Supporters of both the parties are making appeals about their parties and thereby created a tense atmosphere. Their acts also caused obstruction of general public and traffic on the road.

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW.1, eye- witnesses as LWs.2 to 5, LWs.6 and 7 are panch  witnesses and LWs.8 and 9 are the Investigating Officers. LWs.1 to 5 in their statement recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. specifically stated that on 30.011.2018, the petitioner herein and others conducted rally without obtaining permission from the Returning Officer which is in violation of MCC. The petitioner herein is the contesting candidate from Warangal East Constituency. Thus, the petitioner and others obstructed the public and traffic. On consideration of the said statements only, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

6. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the contents of charge sheet and statements of witnesses recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against him.

7. Therefore, it is relevant to extract Section - 188 of IPC and the same is extracted:

“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 person lawfully employed, be punished with simple impris- onment 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 trends 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 d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top