THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14601 of 2025 ORDER:-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.1325 of 2021, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 353 and 285 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005.

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 28.05.2021 at 11:30 hours, when the complainant, who is a Pro Sub-Inspector of Police, Jagtial Rural Police Station, along with other police personnel, were performing lock down duties and stopping unnecessarily moving vehicles in lock down time, at that time, the petitioner/accused No.1 came there by riding his white Honda Activa without number plate and disobeyed the orders promulgated by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 11.05.2021 and knowingly violated the quarantine rue issued against spreading of Corona virus disease under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and also the Disaster Management Act, 2005. When the complainant stopped the accused and asked to show his vehicle documents and any pass to move in the lock down time, the accused did not show any valid documents pertaining to the said vehicle. When the complainant asked the accused to park the vehicle beside the road, the accused refused her words and started arguing with her in aggression, enraged on her by throwing his motorcycle on the road by using criminal force and tried to set ablaze to his motorcycle by opening the petrol cap which would cause endanger to human life and also obstructed the complainant in performing her legitimate duties. As such, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 188, 353, 285 of IPC and Section 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005 and a case in crime No.249 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner and subsequently, the same was got numbered as C.C.No.1325 of 2021, on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial District.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 submits that the petitioner is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant, who is not a competent person, the present FIR is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the offence under Section 3 of the Act shall be deemed to have been committed under Section 188 of IPC. When Section 188 of IPC warrants filing of a private complaint, the same restriction applies to Section 3 of the Act also. Since the prime offence under Section 188 of IPC is barred by Section

195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein, at paragraph No.8, it is held as follows:

“ We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the of