CRLP/8674/2009 of K.Satya Narayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1and 2 (For short, ‘A-1 and A-2’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seekingto quash proceedings in Summary Trial Case No.47 of 2009, pendingon the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class atSanga Reddy, Medak district registered for offence punishable underSection 188 I.P.C.

2. Whereas the petitioners are A-1 and A-2, the Respondent No. 2is the Complainant in the Summary Trial Case. For the sake ofconvenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Summary Trial Casehereafter.

3. Basing the prosecution version i.e. on a report given by aconstable of Ramachandrapuram police station the case wasregistered in Crime No.147 of 2009 on its file in respect of an offencepunishable under Section 188 I.P.C. on the ground that A-1 beingEx.M.L.A. of Bharatiya Janatha Party along with his associatesincluding A-2 without obtaining any prior permission from concernedauthority violated the election code issued in connection with theassembly elections then held by canvassing on National High WayNo.9 in Ramachandrapuram near Nagulamma temple by using bandson 05-04-2009 at 10-30 hours and A-1 and A-2 are liable to bepunished for the alleged offence.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 that Section 188 I.P.C. is not tenable in view of non-compliance of Section195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C.

5. Heard the learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

6. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether there arecircumstances to quash the proceedings as prayed for?

7. By virtue of Section 195 1 (a) (i) Cr.P.C the Court should nottake cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 I.P.C.except on a written complaint given by the complainant. In the presentcase, admittedly, the corresponding report was filed by the Constableof Ramahandrapuram police station and subsequently the chargesheet was filed by the concerned Inspector of that police station. Thus,there has been clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section195 1 (a) (i) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, taking cognizance in the presentcase is not tenable and accordingly the proceedings are liable to bequashed. Nobody should be prosecuted without the authority of lawand doing so would amount to clear abuse of process of law andharassment.

Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal Petitionis allowed quashing the entire proceedings in Summary Trial CaseNo.47 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Class at Sanga Reddy, Medak district.

__________________________

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

Dated:30-11-2011.Dsh.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

211

DSH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8674 OF 2009

December, 30, 2011