Criminal proceedings for Section 188 IPC are vitiated if the mandatory requirement of a written complaint under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. is not met, and such vitiation extends to other offences committed in the same transaction.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.209 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Manoranjan Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 171(E) of IPC and Section 123(1) of RP Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.11.2023, while performing election surveillance duty as part of the Flying Squad Team (FST) during the Telangana Legislative Assembly elections, the complainant apprehended Accused No.1 near Mujeeb Pan Shop, Medarabasti, Kothagudem, on credible information that he was distributing money to voters to influence them in favour of Accused No.2, a contesting candidate. On interception, Accused No.1 allegedly confessed to distributing cash on the instructions of Accused No.2, and an amount of Rs.17,000/- along with voter lists was seized under a panchanama in the presence of mediators. Based on the said incident, a case in Crime No.231 of 2023 was registered for offences under Sections 188 and 171(E) IPC and Section 123(1) of the Representation of the People Act, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed, which culminated in C.C. No.209 of 2025 before the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State. Though notice served upon respondent No.3, none appeared on behalf of him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no prima facie material to attract the alleged offences and the charge sheet is based on assumptions and inadmissible confession and that the essential ingredients of Section 188 IPC are not satisfied as there is no promulgated order or its wilful disobedience. With regard to Section 171(E) IPC and Section 123(1) of the R.P. Act, it is submitted that mere recovery of cash does not establish bribery in the absence of proof of offer or acceptance by voters, and there is no material to show that Accused No.1 acted as an agent of Accused No.2. He contended that no independent witnesses are examined and the case is based only on official witnesses, thereby rendering the prosecution case weak and liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the material collected during investigation clearly establishes that Accused No.1 was caught red-handed while distributing money to voters on the instructions of Accused No.2 and that the seizure of cash and voter lists, coupled with the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, prima facie disclose the commission of offences. He asserted that there is sufficient material to proceed with trial and that the grounds raised by the petitioners are matters of defence, which cannot be considered at the stage of quash and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioners was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 171(E) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 123(1) of R.P. Act. It is specifically contended by the learned