Proceedings Quashed: Lack of Official 'Prohibited Place' Notification Under Official Secrets Act and Procedural Lapses Cited by Telangana High Court - 2025-04-23

Telangana High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against BRS Leaders Over Medigadda Barrage Visit

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed the criminal proceedings against three individuals, including the working president of the BRS Party, related to their visit to the Medigadda (Lakshmi) Barrage and alleged use of a drone camera there. The court cited multiple legal defects, including the lack of a mandatory official notification designating the barrage as a 'prohibited place' under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and procedural non-compliance with provisions of the new criminal laws.

Justice K. Lakshman , presiding over the Criminal Petition No. 9216 of 2024, held that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 118 of 2024 of Mahadevpur Police Station constituted an abuse of the process of law.

Case Background

The case was initiated based on a report by an Assistant Executive Engineer at the Medigadda Barrage. The complainant alleged that on July 26, 2024, the petitioners, along with other BRS party leaders and social media representatives, visited the barrage and operated a drone camera without permission, capturing visuals. He claimed the barrage was an important project and the petitioners' actions posed a threat. The FIR was initially registered under Section 223(b) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), related to disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant causing danger.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, asserting their innocence, claiming false implication due to political rivalry, and arguing that the allegations did not legally constitute the offence under Section 223(b) BNS as no violation of a specific order promulgated by a public servant was alleged.

The prosecution, representing the State, opposed the quashing petition. They argued that the Telangana Government had identified Medigadda Barrage as a critical/strategically important installation and included it in the ' Yellow Zone ' of the "Digisky Platform" as per a 2019 G.O. and a 2020 committee report. They contended that the Drone Rules, 2021, restrict drone operations in Yellow Zone s without necessary permission from the concerned Air Traffic Control Authority. An alteration memo was also filed during the investigation, adding charges under Sections 3 and 7 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Section 10A of the Aircraft Act , 1934.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The court meticulously examined the legal provisions involved and the facts presented.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Section 223(b): The court referenced earlier judgments (dealing with the akin IPC Section 188) which established that for an offence of disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant, the complaint must be made by the public servant concerned or their administrative superior. Citing Section 215(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the court found that the Investigating Officer did not follow this mandatory procedure when registering the crime under Section 223(b) BNS.

Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA): Regarding the added charges under OSA, the court focused on the definition of a "prohibited place" under Section 2(8) of the Act. Specifically under Section 2(8)(d), places like public works can be declared 'prohibited places' only by the Central Government through a notification in the Official Gazette, with copies affixed in the locality. The court noted that while the Telangana Government had identified Medigadda Barrage as critical/ Yellow Zone and listed it for inclusion in the 'Digisky Platform', it had not been notified as a prohibited place by the Central Government as required by the Official Secrets Act. Without this mandatory notification, the court held that Sections 3 (spying) and 7 (interfering with officers) of the OSA were not applicable.

Aircraft Act , 1934: The court also addressed the addition of Section 10A of the Aircraft Act . It observed that Section 10A deals with the adjudication of penalties by the Central Government for contraventions of rules under the Act, not criminal offences to be investigated by police and tried by regular criminal courts. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey , the High Court reiterated that the Aircraft Act is a complete code with a special procedure for taking cognizance (complaint by or with the sanction of aviation authorities), and local police can only forward collected material to the authorized officer. Thus, adding Section 10A of the Aircraft Act by the Investigating Officer was found to be incorrect.

Other Factors: The court also took note of the delay of approximately 3.5 days in lodging the FIR after the alleged incident, finding the complainant's explanation unsatisfactory. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Mohammad Wajid and Kim Wansoo regarding the court's duty to look closely into FIRs, especially where allegations are vague or potentially motivated by political rivalry or personal grudge, and the circumstances under which quashing is warranted if the allegations, even if taken as true, do not disclose the commission of an offence or constitute an abuse of process. The principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal on the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC (akin to BNSS provisions for quashing) were also applied.

Pivotal Excerpts

The court's reasoning hinged significantly on the lack of the required official notification:

> "As per Section - 2 (8) (d) of the Official Secrets Act, an area will be called prohibited place on declaration of the said place as prohibited area by the Central Government by way of issuing Notification in the Official Gazette. ... Medigadda Barrage is also included in the said list [State Govt list], but the same was not notified as prohibited place in terms of Section - 2 (8) (d) of the Official Secrets Act by the Central Government."

And on the misapplication of the Aircraft Act provision:

> "As per Section - 10A of the Aircraft Act , it is the Central Government, which has power to adjudicate penalties. Therefore, the Investigating Officer cannot add Section - 10A of the Aircraft Act ."

> "...as a complaint can be made/filed by an authorised officer alone under the Special Act i.e. the Aircrafts Act, 1934... the local police can only forward the material collected by it... It shall be open to the authorised officer to take a decision... with regard to filing or non-filing of a complaint."

Decision and Implications

Based on its analysis, the High Court concluded that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners was an abuse of the process of law due to the specific legal bars and defects identified in the application of BNS, OSA, and the Aircraft Act .

Consequently, the court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 118 of 2024 against the petitioners (accused Nos. 1 to 3) alone. The judgment underscores the necessity for strict adherence to procedural requirements under specific laws like the Official Secrets Act and the Aircraft Act , emphasizing that state-level categorizations or drone rules alone do not automatically fulfill the conditions for invoking stringent central statutes requiring specific notifications or procedures. The ruling highlights the court's role in preventing the misuse of the criminal justice system where legal prerequisites for initiating or continuing proceedings are absent.