IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2228 of 2026 Date: 19.02.2026 Between:

Shaik Saifullah @ Khaled and another ...Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad through P.S.Sayeedabad and another ...Respondents

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.9315 of 2020 on the file of learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 27.06.2020 at 18:30 hours, the de-facto complainant, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saidabad Police Station, lodged a complaint stating that the accused gathered 500 members and performed namaz and cremation of their father namely Moulana Nazeeruddin who died due to COVID-19 without maintaining any social distance by a procession via main road from VIP school to Saidabad X roads in violation of the COVID-19 norms and the lockdown orders promulgated by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.Nos.45 and 46.

3. Heard Mr.Syed Ahmed Ali, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 submits that the petitioners are innocent and had 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 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘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 269 of the IPC shall be deemed to have been committed under Section 188 of the IPC. When Section 188 of the IPC warrants filing of a private complaint, the same restriction applies to Section 269 of the IPC also. Since the prime offence under Section 188 of the 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 the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the 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)”

6. Further, this Court in Crl.P.No.14601 of 2025, while considering the same situation, categorically observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner therein cannot be continued and quashed the proceedings. The petitioners are also entitled to the same relief and hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners herein had also been charged with the offences other than 188 of the 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