Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23584
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J
SRI. ETALA RAJENDER – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/915/2024
Proceedings under election-related offences were quashed due to lack of sufficient evidence and essential elements, constituting an abuse of legal process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 188 - Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 126 - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner sought to quash proceedings against him for alleged violations of election laws during a press meet - The court found the charge sheet lacked necessary ingredients of the offences under Sections 188 and 126, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process of law. (Paras 2, 14)
(B) Quashing of Proceedings - The court emphasized that the power to quash should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where allegations do not constitute an offence. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of violating election laws by conducting a press meet during the election silence period, faced charges under IPC and R.P. Act based on a complaint lodged by a member of the Election Flying Surveillance Team. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the allegations in the charge sheet and witness statements did not establish the essential elements of the alleged offences, thereby quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. (Paras 14, 16)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges under Sections 188 and 126 and the legality of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. (Paras 12, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the continuation of proceedings lacked a reasonable basis and constituted an abuse of legal process, thus warranting quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 14, 16)
Result: The proceedings in C.C. No.240 of 2022 are quashed against the petitioner.
ORAL ORDER :
Heard Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Gummalla Bhasker 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 - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.240 of 2022 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as sole accused in the said case. The offences alleged against him are under Section - 188 of IPC and Section - 126 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short ‘R.P. Act’).
4. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint dated 01.11.2021 with Kamalapur Police Station stating that on 30.10.2021 while their Election Flying Surveillance Team (FST) was moving in the premises of Chinna Badi, Kamalapur Village, the BJP Party contestant i.e., accused herein conducted press meet near Booth No.262 of Chinna Badi, Kamalapur Village. Therefore, accused No.1 and other persons conducted press meet and violated the Election Code. Therefore, he requested the police to take action against the petitioner herein.
5. On receipt of the said complaint, the police of Kamalapur registered a case in Crime No.220 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences. On completion of investigation, Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioner and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.240 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences.
6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1, two (02) police constables as LWs.2 and 3. LWs. LWs.4 and 5 are panch witnesses, while LWs.6 and 7 are the Investigating Officers.
7. Perusal of statements of LWs.1 to 3 recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. would reveal that they all in one voice stated that on 30.10.2021 at about 9.20 A.M., the petitioner conducted press-meet at Booth No.262 of Chinna Badi, Kamalapur Village and, thus, he has violated the Election Code. They have also requested the Investigating Officer to take action against the persons who co-operated with the accused for conducting the said press-meet.
8. It is relevant to refer to Section - 188 of IPC and Section 126 of R.P. Act, and the same are extracted hereunder:
“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 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 offence defined in this section.”
“ 126. Prohibition of public meetings during period of forty-eight hours ending with hour fixed for conclusion of poll.—
(1) N
