IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7888 and 7889 of 2024

20^th February, 2026 Between: C.Kaseem …Petitioner/Accused AND The State of Telangana and Another …Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C. Nos. 3233 and 3235 of 2023, arising out of Crime Nos. 55 and 57 of 2023 of Osmania University Police Station, Hyderabad, pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. As the issues involved in both Criminal Petitions are analogous and arise out of similar factual backgrounds and identical legal questions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order.

3. Heard Mr. T. Rahul, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State; and Mr. D. B. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Mr. Aziz Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the aforesaid calendar cases for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 341, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The prosecution case, in brief, is that respondent No.2 lodged a report on 07.02.2023 alleging that the petitioner and others gathered under a tree in front of the Arts College, Osmania University, and were tying a banner demanding filling up of vacant posts. In the other crime, the petitioner along with others had erected a tent in front of the Arts College on 06.02.2023 and conducted a ‘diksha’ protesting the non- conduct of faculty recruitment, which was allegedly contrary to the decision of the 159th meeting of the Executive Council held on 22.06.2021, wherein the University resolved that no political or religious organization shall be permitted to conduct any gathering within the campus. On the basis of the said allegations, the crimes were registered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that the prosecution for the offence under Section 188 IPC (disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant) is legally unsustainable in view of the mandatory bar contained in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC can be taken only upon a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or by another public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, proceedings were initiated based on a police report, which is expressly excluded from the definition of “complaint” under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. Hence, the very foundation for taking cognizance is absent, rendering the proceedings void ab initio.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that the charge sheet was filed pursuant to a police report and that the procedure mandated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with. He leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner’s acts were in violation of the decision of the Executive Council and were disruptive to the academic environment, and therefore the prosecution was rightly initiated.

8. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.

9. The gravamen of the allegations is that the petitioner violated a decision taken by the Executive Council of the University and thereby disobeyed an order promulgated by a public authority. Thus, the essential offence alleged is one under Section 188 IPC, which deals with disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant.

10. At this juncture, it is necessary to advert to Section 195(1)(a)(i)

Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“No Court shall take cognizance - (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal