HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5029 of 2025

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr.G.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/sole accused and Smt.Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/sole accused in C.C.No.460 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner herein is the sole accused in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 269 and 188 of IPC and Section 57 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short ‘DM Act, 2005’).

4. On the complaint dated 10.04.2021 of respondent No.2, Police, Peddavoora Police Station, Nalgonda District, registered a case in Crime No.126 of 2021 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

5. In the complaint dated 10.04.2021, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are that on 10.04.2021 at about 07.30 P.M. the petitioner and others have conducted public meeting in Utlapally Village, Peddavoora Mandal, Nalgonda District, in view of bye-elections – 2021. Thus, the petitioner and others have violated Covid-19 Rules without wearing masks, without maintaining social distance and also violated the Model Code of Conduct. Respondent No.2 requested the Station House Officer, Peddavoora Police Station, to take action against the petitioner and others.

6. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW.1, Abbagani Somaiah, PC-1816 of Vemulapally Police Station as LW.2 and Sk.Ibrahim, Videographer as LW.3. On consideration of the said statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.460 of 2023 against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

7. Petitioner filed the present petition to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. contending that in view of the bar under Section 60 of DM Act, 2005, Police can’t prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 57 of DM Act, 2005 by registering Crime No.126 of 2021, which is in violation of the procedure laid down under Section 60 of DM Act, 2005.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contents of the complaint and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C lack ingredients of Section 269 of IPC. Petitioner herein was Member of Legislative Assembly at that relevant point of time and presently, he is a Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha). He was falsely implicated in the said case. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against him in the said C.C. is an abuse of process of law.

9. Learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would fairly contend that there is a procedure prescribed under Section 60 of DM Act, 2005 to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 57 of DM Act, 2005. With regard to Section 269 of IPC, she contended that Government has issued guidelines with regard to Covid-19 vide G.O.Ms.No.68, General Administration (Covid), dated 27.03.2021. Therefore, the contents of complaint dated 10.04.2021 and statements of LWs.1 to 3 prima facie constitute the offence under Section 269 of IPC.

10. In the light of the said submissions, it is relevant to note that Sections 57 and 60 of DM Act, 2005 and the same are extracted under:

“57. Penalty for contravention of any order regarding requisitioning - If any person contravenes any order made under section 65, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

60. Cognizance of offences - No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by- (a)the