ORDER :

ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) by petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.281 of 2022 on the file of The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for trial of Excise Cases, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. B.Balaji, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and Mr. E.Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1–State.

3. On the basis of complaint of respondent No.2 (Machineella Ram Babu, Flying Squad In-charge Team No.1, Vikarabad), an FIR bearing No.69 of 2019 came to be registered on 12.03.2023 for the offences under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). It is stated in the complaint that respondent No.2, while performing his duties, at 11:00 hours, came across a hunger strike being undertaken in an open place opposite to RDO office, Vikarabad, by the followers of a national party. That petitioner/accused No.1 (MP Chevalla) along with other accused (accused No.2 - Ex-MLA Pargi, accused No.3 - MLA Tandur, accused No.4 - Ex-Minister, Vikarabad, and accused No.5 – Vikarabad Congress Party Town President) participated in the hunger strike. It is further stated that as per the Model Code of Conduct, they could not have conducted such meeting, without proper permission. Hence, the complaint.

4. Complaint is said to be received on 12.03.2019 at 14:00 hours, FIR came to be registered on the very same day. Charge sheet came to be filed against accused on 24.07.2019, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Vikarabad.

5. On a perusal of the charge sheet, it is observed that contents of the charge sheet are a verbatim replica of complaint, except for the statement that the acts and commission of accused persons constitutes an offence under Section 188 of IPC and a reference to LWs.2 to 4.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that for an offence under Section 188 of IPC, a procedure has been prescribed under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) and the procedure mandated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is not followed, as such, the offence under Section 188 of IPC cannot be said to be made out.

7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. Referring to paragraphs 41, 42 and 43, as well as the conclusions summarised therein, it is submitted that the Apex Court considered Section 195 Cr.P.C. and laid down the law. The same has not been adhered to, hence, the proceedings be quashed.

8. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that procedure laid out under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to, charge sheet is taken on record and cognizance of the offence is taken by Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Vikarabad, for an offence under Section 188 and numbered as C.C.No.281 of 2022 on the filing of final report/charge sheet.

9. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is as follows:

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.—

(1) No Court shall take cognizance—

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under sectio