A criminal proceeding for offences under Section 188 IPC is non-maintainable without a written complaint from the concerned public servant as mandated by Section 195 Cr.P.C., and a co-accused's confession cannot create a prima facie case for prosecution against others.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by petitioner/accused No.5 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.217 of 2024 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, (Prohibition & Excise) at Sangareddy. The offences alleged against petitioner are under Sections 171-B r/w 171-E and 188 r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Ms. Y.Sonanjali, learned counsel for petitioner

and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for

the respondent – State. Perused the material on record.

3. On the basis of a complaint dated 29.11.2023 by one Mr. Nageshwar Naik (Flying Squad-I, Patancheru Assembly Constituency) addressed to the Inspector of Police, Patancheru, an FIR came to be registered bearing No.863 of 2023, dated 29.11.2023, for the offences under Sections 171-B r/w 171-E and 188 r/w 109 of IPC. The gist of the complaint is the flying squad team was making rounds in the Patancheru Assembly Constituency, when it noticed that followers of BRS party were distributing amounts to the public (voters) and they went to the place. It is further the complaint that flying squad team along with police personnel have taken into custody Chilveri Srinivas, Nallavalli Kiran Reddy, Pullaguri Srinivas Reddy and Bollampally Bharath Reddy. 7 voter ID cards, Model Ballot Paper of BRS party and voter list of Muthangi village along with net cash amounting to Rs.52,640/- present with the said party workers were seized. Hence, the complaint for necessary action.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.5 that ingredients of Sections 171-B , 171-E and 188 of IPC are not made out from the complaint, that confessions made by accused cannot be made as a ground to implicate the accused for the offences. Learned counsel placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu ¹2024 SCC Online SC 3803, has contended that confession statement of co-accused cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial against the appellant. It is further submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court at Paragraph No.12 of said judgment has held that “when that be the position, how can it be said that a prima facie case is made out to make the appellant to stand the trial”. Relying upon the contents of said Paragraph, it is submitted that prima facie, no case has been made out from the contents of complaint.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.5 submitted that procedure as laid out in Section 195 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed in respect of an offence alleged under Section 188 of IPC and if there is any violation of the procedure, such a violation goes to the root of the case and the case is hit by non compliance. That the proceedings do not deserve to be carried any forward. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.152 and 5696 of 2025. Placing reliance upon the said judgment, it is contended that present petition has to meet the same fate. That, proceedings be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that on a perusal of confession statements recorded, it is apparent that it is only at the behest of petitioner/accused No.5, the said act of distributing amounts to voters is being carried out. That the c