THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14779 of 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.991 of 2024 pending on the file of learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 188, 171(C) read with 171(F) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 126, 130, 131 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

2. Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State. Perused the record.

3. On the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the Police, Bhavani Nagar have registered a case in Crime No.165 of 2023, dated 30.11.2023 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. In the complaint dated 30.11.2023, the respondent No.2 has stated that while he was patrolling in the limits of P.S. Bhavani Nagar, he noticed that the accused No.1, who is serving as the Election Agent for the AIMIM candidate in the Yakutpura-68 constituency roaming and talking with the public along with eight other individuals on four motor cycles. Then, he had suspicion that the said individuals do not belong to the Yakutpura constituency and they are potentially engaging in activities aimed at influencing or intimidating voter, and further he has also observed that those people are approaching the voters and talking with them it is likely to threaten to cast their votes to a particular party. Hence the present complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case without making any preliminary enquiry and without taking any permission from the learned Magistrate and has routinely registered the present case, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is further contended that the contents of complaint do not make out any offences as alleged. It is further contended that in the similar circumstances, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners therein in Criminal Petition No.14745 of 2024 and the petitioners herein are also standing on the same footing and prayed to extend the same benefit to the present petitioners also and prayed to allow this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand, it is apt to refer Section 188 of IPC which 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 n