HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4032 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.865 of 2023 on the file of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171(B)

r/w 171 (E) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Ms.Saniya Benazir, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.11.2023 at 19.00 hours, de facto complainant along with his staff while conducting vehicle checking stopped a Creta white color car bearing No.TS09 EC T/R 0610 and when they checked the car, there were three persons in the car and found cash in a rice bag near the legs of the person sitting next to the driver in the front seat. Then they tried to stop the car but the accused persons did not stop, they however chased the car and caught hold of them and collected panchas on the spot and interrogated them in the presence of panchas and the accused informed that they actively work for congress party and that their leader Sathish told them to distribute money to the public who attends meeting and that the cash in the rice bag is the same containing Rs.46,00,000/-. Hence they seized the said cash and the said car and took possession of the three accused persons and took to the police station. The Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.975 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 188, 171(B) r/w 171 (E) of IPC.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the offences alleged are false, untenable and illegal and are liable to be quashed. The registration of the impugned FIR for the offence alleged under Section 188 IPC itself is impermissible in law, wherein the section 195(1) Cr.P.C. mandates that any complaint for offence under section 188 of IPC is to be filed by the public servant concerned. It is further evident that no complaint in writing has been moved by the public servant concerned as is required under section 195(1) Cr.P.C. Even assuming the allegations to be true, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners herein confessed that the seized money was being transported for the purpose of distributing the same to the public who attends the meeting. That the said allegation in its entirety does not constitute the ingredient of section 171-B IPC, wherein the essential ingredient is that persons should have been bribed or any money should have been accepted by the people for such purpose of exercising the electoral franchise. Except the confession statements, no material was collected during the investigation by the police in proof of the allegations alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners were falsely implicated in the above crime and have nothing to do with the present crime. It is not the case of the prosecution that the cash was seized from the petitioners while they are distributing to the voters. Hence, prays the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged against them and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. In the light of the above submissions, it is apt to note that section 188 of IPC which deals with ‘disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant’, 171B of IPC which deals with ‘Bribery’ and 171E of IPC which deals with the ‘punishment for bribery’ and the same are extracted as under:

“188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by a 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