IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.903 of 2026 DATE : 19.02.2026 Between:

Ms. D. K. Aruna.

…Petitioner/Sole-Accused AND State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, In the High Court at Hyderabad and another.

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed before this Court seeking to call for records in C.C.No.457 of 2021 before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gadwal registered for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) against the petitioner and to quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the police stating that the petitioner herein along with other accused persons, illegally moved in vehicles and visited some polling stations without taking prior permission from election officers by violating the code of conduct. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action. Based on the said complaint, the police registered a case vide Fir No.27 of 2020 against the petitioner and others for the aforementioned offences.

3. Heard Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is innocent of the allegations levelled against her and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is further contended that there is a statutory bar against the respondent police for taking cognizance to register the FIR and proceeding insofar as the alleged offences fall within the ambit of Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Section 195(i)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C., it is argued that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC unless a complaint in writing has been given to the Court by public authority concerned. In this present case, the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2, who is not the competent public servant as contemplated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Further, the FIR was directly registered by the police without there being a written complaint submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate by the competent authority, as mandated under Section 195 OF Cr.P.C.

5. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of this Court in N.T.Rama Rao V. The State of A.P., 1995 (3) ALT 929 wherein, while dealing with the offences under Sections 188 and 283 of IPC, it was held that:

“Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure."

6. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the complaint was filed by the de-facto complainant i.e., respondent No.2 – Municipal Commissioner, which itself demonstrates deviation from the procedure contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. As per the mandatory req