HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8834 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.1 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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.498 of 2024 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Cases relating to MP’s and MLA’s - cum - Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Cases under Prohibition Act (Excise Court), Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid C.C. The offences alleged against him are under Sections - 147, 188 and 341 read with 149 of IPC.

4. On the complaint dated 05.07.2018 lodged by respondent No.2 - Inspector of Police, Kaghaznagar Town Police Station, Kaghaznagar Town Police Station have registered a case in Crime No.127 of 2018 against the petitioner herein and others for the aforesaid offences.

5. In the complaint, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein and others are that on 05.07.2018 at 2.00 P.M., while he was conducting Town Patrolling duty, it was noticed that the petitioner herein being Independent MLA contesting candidate from Sirpur Assembly Constituency took bike rally with his followers from Prajalife Care Hospital to Praja Karyalayam near SPM Gate, Kaghaznagar. At 2.30 P.M., they gathered illegally and obstructed the way and restrained the general public by violating orders of Government Servant while Section - 30 of the Police Act is in force in Kumuram Bheem - Asifabad District, to maintain Public Order, and thereby they committed the aforesaid offences.

6. After receipt of the aforesaid report, the Police, Kaghaznagar Town Police Station, registered the aforesaid crime.

7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of police constables of the said police station as LWs.1 and 2, who said to be the eye-witnesses to the aforesaid incident and so also LWs.3 and 4. LWs.5 and 6 are panch witnesses. LW.7 is not only the complainant, but also the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid crime.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the complaint dated 05.07.2018 lodged by respondent No.2 and the statements of LWs.1 to 4 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. LWs.2 and 3 are interested witnesses as they are police constables of the very same police station and, therefore, their statements cannot be taken into consideration. The Investigating Officer did not examine any person who faced traffic disturbance said to have caused on account of rally conducted by the petitioner and other accused. The Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet in a routine manner. In this case, the complaint given by the Complainant himself is the Investigating Officer. Thus, the proceedings in the aforesaid C.C. cannot go on.

9. Whereas, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on account of the rally conducted by the petitioner and others, traffic disturbance was caused. The statements of LWs.1 to 4 attract the aforesaid offences and so also the contents of the complaint. LWs.3 and 4 are not interested witnesses and they are independent witnesses. The Investigating Officer having considered all the said aspects during the course of investigation laid the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused.

There is no error in it.

10. LWs.1 and 2, police constables of the very same police station reiterated the contents of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. LW.3 and 4 also said to be eye witnesses to the incident spoke on the same lines as spoken by LWs.1 and 2.

11. In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that Section - 188 of IPC deals with ‘disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant’ and the same is extracted as under:

“188. Disobedience