THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7049 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1896 of 2019 pending on the file of learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 188, 171(H) of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 21/76 of the City Police Act (for short ‘CP Act’).

02. Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Perused the record.

03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that during the General Elections, 2018, the petitioner–accused moved in Yakuthpura Constituency on behalf of AIMIM political party and conducted padayatras and public meetings. It is alleged that the petitioner obtained permission on 04.11.2018 from 04:00 PM to 08:00 PM for a padayatra from Bada Bazar X Roads to Harmain Hotel, Eidi Bazar via Rein Bazar, subject to certain conditions. However, the political party is alleged to have violated the Model Code of Conduct by conducting rallies with bikes, jeeps, horses, camels, and DJs, by using vans with loudspeakers, distributing party T-shirts and caps, and carrying out activities without any valid permission. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner committed the above offences.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case without making any preliminary enquiry and without taking any permission from the learned Magistrate and has routinely registered the present case, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is further contended that the contents of complaint do not make out any offences as alleged. It is further contended that in the similar circumstances, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners therein in Criminal Petition No.14744 of 2024 and the petitioner herein is also standing on the same footing and prayed to extend the same benefit to the present petitioner and prayed to allow this Criminal Petition.

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, it is apt to refer Section 188 of IPC which deals with ‘disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant’ and the same is extracted as under:

“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 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 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 diso