IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.9948 of 2025 DATE: 13.02.2026 BETWEEN:

Payal Shanker …..petitioner/accused And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad and another.

…..Respondent/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.643 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adilabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section

127(A) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.04.2024 at about 22:15 hours, a complaint was received from the Flying Squad Team Magistrate, Adilabad Urban, stating that flexies relating to “Sri Rama Navami Shobhayatra” in the name of the Hon’ble MLA, Adilabad, were placed on road medians from Vinayaka Chowk to Ambedkar Chowk without permission during the Model Code of Conduct period for the Lok Sabha Elections-2024. Upon inspection, the Flying Squad allegedly found the flexies displayed without permission and videographed the same. Basing on the same, the crime was registered against the petitioner for the above said offences.

3. Heard Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry, as he had no connection with the alleged flexies. He further contended that the essential ingredients of Sections 188 IPC and 127-A of the Representation of the People Act were not made out, as there was no lawful promulgation of any order nor any allegation regarding absence of printer or publisher details on election material, and moreover the petitioner was not even a candidate in the Lok Sabha elections. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the material collected during the course of investigation clearly disclosed the commission of cognizable offences and that during the Model Code of Conduct period, flexies containing the name and image of the petitioner, who was a public representative, were found displayed at public places without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities, thereby violating the election guidelines and lawful orders promulgated by public servants. He further submitted that the issues raised by the petitioner were matters for trial and could not be adjudicated in a petition seeking quashment at the threshold stage. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 127-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was innocent and had no connection whatsoever with the alleged flexies said to have been placed without permission. At this stage, it was imperative to note the relevant provisions of law, which read as under:

7. Section 188 of the I.P.C reads as follows:

Section 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