THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.549 of 2023

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against him in F.I.R.No.12 of 2023 of Sanathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 186 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Ms. Niloufer Afghan, learned counsel representing Mr. Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Inspite of substituted service by way of paper publication, there is no representation of respondent No.2 either in person or through counsel, as such, this Court after recording his absence proceeded to dispose of the present matter on merits. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant is working as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Sanathnagar, TSSPDCL. On 06.01.2023, when the de facto complainant went to petitioner’s premises for inspecting service connection, unknown persons abused him as “Madar Chud” and threatened him as he went for inspecting service connection, obstructing his official duties.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the de facto complainant, who is a public servant, has directly lodged the present complaint, without approaching his higher authorities. To initiate criminal proceedings against the accused under Section 186 of IPC, the complainant has to file a private complaint as contemplated under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, though the offences alleged against the petitioner are non-cognizable, basing on the Police report lodged by the de facto complainant, the Police without obtaining necessary permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. have registered the present FIR against the petitioner, contrary to law.

4.2. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others and drawn attention of this Court to guideline Nos.4 and 6, which are as follows:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or

1 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just