HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.988 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.458 of 2023 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Hyderabad against the petitioner herein - accused No.2.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in the aforesaid C.C.No.458 of 2023. The offence alleged against him is under Sections-188 and 269 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 57 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

4. On the complaint, dated 11.04.2021 lodged by respondent No.2, the Police, Thirumalagiri (S) have registered a case in Crime No.111 of 2021 against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. In the said complaint, dated 11.04.2021, respondent No.2 alleged that as per the instructions of Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirumalagiri, he, along L.Ws.2 and 3, were conducting patrolling duty bye-elections of Nagarjuna Sagar Assembly Constituency at Megya Thanda Village. At about 21.00 hours, they found the petitioner and other accused leaders belongs to TRS party and organized campaign of bye-elections without taking precautions prescribed by both the Central and State Government as per Covid-19 in terms of G.O.No.68 of 2021, dated 27.03.2021 and they have not wore the face masks. They have not maintained social distance. They have conducted the said rally and election campaign negligently.

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as L.W.1. Sri Yara Krishna, Police Constable as L.W.2;Sri Shayamala Varma, Videographer as L.W.3; Sri Kondal Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police as L.W.4. L.W.1 reiterated the contents of the complaint, dated

11.04.2021. L.Ws.2 and 3 also stated in the same lines

6. The allegations leveled against the petitioner herein are that he along with others have conducted campaign without adhering Covid-19 instructions/guidelines issued by the Central Government and also stated vide G.O.Mos.No.68, dated 27.03.2021. Without considering the said aspects, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioner herein.

7. As discussed supra in the present case, the investigating officer did not examine any independent witness to say that the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.

8. It is apposite to extract the relevant provisions of IPC, ED Act and DM Act, which are as under:

INDIAN PENAL CODE “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 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