HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.1546 of 2025

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.418 of 2020 of PS Jagtial Town at Jagtial District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 188 and Section 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act’).

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Muhammed Abed, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. Basing on the complaint dated 15.08.2020 lodged by the 2^nd respondent-the Inspector of Police, Jagtial Police Station, that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and others, who belonged to PFI Party were spreading rumors that they are trained in Covid-19 rules, and they will perform last rites of those who died due to Covide-19 disease and accused No.1 using his cell phone posting pictures and messages to his contact groups. Thereby, the accused Nos.1 and 2 disobeyed the Orders promulgated by the Government of Telangana issued against spreading of corona virus disease under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. A case in Crime No.418 of 2020 was registered against the petitioners and others.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 of IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant, who is not a competent person, the present FIR is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the offence under Section 54 of the Act, shall be deemed to have been committed under Section 188 of IPC. When Section 188 of IPC warrants filing of a private complaint, the same restriction applies to Section 54 of the Act also. Since the prime offence under Section 188 of IPC is barred by Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., the whole proceedings are without jurisdiction.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417, wherein, at paragraph No.8, it is held as follows:

“ We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 195(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld”.

(Emphasis supplied)

Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners have also been charged with the offences other than 188 of IPC. Hence, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners, basing on the final report filed by the Police, as such, the proceedings cannot be vitiated and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be one without authority

of Law. He further submitted that the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. For the sake of convenience, Section 188 of IPC and Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are extracted hereunder.

188 of IPC. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant — Whoever, knowing that, by an order prom