HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8865 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.403 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is accused No.1 in the aforesaid C.C.

The offence alleged against him is under Section 188 of IPC. 2nd respondent lodged a complaint before Police, Garidepally Police Station, Suryapet District, alleging that on 19.10.2019 at 1100 A.M., when he was working as Model Code of Conduct (MCC) Team leader in Huzurnagar bye elections, he noticed that one meeting was conducted at Ponugodu Village and in that meeting the petitioner/accused No.1 along with accused No.2 were giving speech in favour of Congress Party and after enquiry, 2^nd respondent came to know that accused Nos.1 and 2 have conducted meeting without taking any prior permission from the Returning Officer, Huzurnagar and as such, they have violated the Model Code of Conduct. Thereupon, Police, Garidepally Police Station, Suryapet District, registered a case in Crime No.267 of 2019 against petitioner/accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of 2^nd respondent as L.W.1, Revenue Inspector in Mandal Revenue Office, Garidepally Mandal as L.W.2, Police Constable as L.W.3 and Videographer as L.W.4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against petitioner and accused No.2 for the aforesaid offence and the same was taken on file by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.403 of 2023. Challenging the proceedings in the said C.C., petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present Criminal Petition.

4. Whereas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that petitioner and others have conducted election campaign without obtaining prior permission and thus, they have violated the Model Code of Conduct. In the complaint lodged by 2^nd respondent, there are specific allegations levelled against petitioner. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioner are defences which he has to take during trial and it is for the trial Court to consider.

5. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that there are no orders that were promulgated by any authority. Therefore, the question of violating the same by the petitioner does not arise. Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Cr.P.C. and learned Magistrate without considering the aforesaid aspects took cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioner herein.

6. In view of the above submissions, it is apt to note that Section 188 of IPC 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 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 e