HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7120 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for petitioner/accused and Ms. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.

2. This application is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash the proceedings against petitioner/accused in C.C.No.491 of 2024 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 an accused in the aforesaid C.C. The offence alleged against him is under Section 188 of IPC. 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint before Police, Dahegaon Police Station, Komarambheem Asifabad District, alleging that on 19.10.2023, the petitioner, leader of Bharatiya Janata Party, conducted election meeting at Kothmeer Village, Dahegaon Mandal, Asifabad District, without obtaining permission from the Returning Officer, Sirpur Assembly Constituency. Thus, he had violated the Model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India. Thereupon, Police, Dahegaon Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.94 of 2023 against petitioner 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, Police Constable as L.W.2 and Videographer as L.W.3. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence, before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sirpur (T). The same was taken on file by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sirpur (T), and was transferred to the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases relating to MPs and MLAs, Hyderabad, and was numbered as C.C.No.491 of 2024. Challenging the proceedings in the said C.C., petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that petitioner had conducted election meeting without obtaining prior permission and thus, he had violated the Model Code of Conduct. In the complaint lodged by 2^nd respondent, there are specific allegations levelled against petitioner.

5. 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 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 disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot.

A has committed the offence defined in this section.”

6. It is also apt to note that in N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P.,