Sogala Kumar v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-19. Sogala Kumar v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ ] t**,t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FEBRUARY THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2246 OF 2026 Between: R/o H'No' 7-1-270' Soqala Kumar, S/o Mallaiah Age: 57 Years, Occ: Business, CIM' Colony, Codhavarikhani, Peddapalli Dist ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Pegadapalli, Jagtyal Dist, Rep by its 1 The State of Telangana, through PS prOliJ itote"rtor, HIgh Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad I KGanqadhar,S/oGangaRajam,Aged60Yrs,Occ. DeputyTahisrldar,R/o Pesadiparri virrase rahasil "1i? d38tilfl 8,il'o. -ro"ro coMpLArNANr Petition under section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in CC No 801 of 2024 on the file of Add'itional Judicial lt/agistrate of First class tt/agistrate, at Karimnagar, against the Petitioner l. A.
NO: 2 OF 2026 petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the [Vlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may uepteaseotograntStayofallfurtherproceedingsinCCNo. B0,lof2024onthe file of Additional Judicial [vlagistrate of Frrst class Magistrate, At Karimnagar including the attendence of t-he Petitioner till the disposal of the Matn Quash Petition in the interest of the. iustice. of This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVemorandum Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Karuna the Sagar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla' of on behalf of the Additronal Public Prosecutor for the State Telangana no'2' Respondent No. 1 and None appeared for Rsspondent The Court made the following: ORDER +, HTGH COURT FOR THE sTATE OF TELI NG ANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREI NIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETI IION No. 2246 ol ',026 Date:19. 02.
2026 Between: Sogala Kumar ... I)etitioner AND 'felangana, The State of through PS Pegadapalli, Jagtyal Dist. , Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad and another ... Respondents :ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been hled by the tetitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C,C. No. 80l of ))24 on the file of the Additionat Judicial Magistrate of First Class (p( R) Magisrrate, ar Karimnagar. 2. Heard Mr. K. Karuna Sagar, learned counsel for he petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned prosecutor, Additional I ublic appearing on behalf of respondent No. l-State. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner falsely in has not committed any offence and he has been implicated the present case.
Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients of the offences under Section [88 ofthe lndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'lPC') and Section 127(A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the RP Act') are not attracted. He further submitted that the issue raised in the present criminal petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 8227 of 2022, dated 24. 11. 2025 and the common order passed in Crl. P. Nos. 152 and 5696 of 2025 dated 18. 08. 2025 and also * placed copies of the said orders. The petitioner is also entitled for the h very same relief. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the h petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. 4. The said submission has not disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. In view of the above said submissions and taking into i! a consideration the orders passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 8227 of 2022, i'l I iated 24. 11.
2025, and Crl. p. Nos. l52 and 5696 of 2025, dated 1!. 08. 2025, this Court finds it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction i I a under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the protr edings against the petitioner herein 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is ,llowed and the proceedings in C. C. No. 80 I of 2024 on the file cf the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (PCR) Magistr,r e, at Karimnagar, against the petitioner/accused, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shr ll stand closed IiD/. MOHD. ISMAIL Dt:,UTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Magistrate at Frrst Class lVlagistrate I 'CR) 1. The Additional Judicial Karimnaqar. Station l rgtial Disttict , iilijHffi House oflicer Pegadapalli Police , Telangana' at Puntrc Froseiutor. High court for the tate of 3. lwo CCs to the ' Hvderabad [OUT] j 'Sri K Karuna Advocate [oPUC] 4. ijili-cd i Sagar t Two CD CoPies Pr/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 1910212026 \ --1 ORDER -! CRLP. No.
2246 of 2026 t\tt tLs i'J + C i ALLOWING THE CRL. PETITION ( -',iK9 t) 'Le\"\'L HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETI'I'ION Nos. 152 A ND 5696 0F 2025 COMMON ORDER Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, leamed counsel lor the petitioners - accused Nos. l, 2 & 4 and Mrs. Shalini Saxena. learned counsel representing Mr. Palle Nageswara Rao, leamed Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Criminal Petition No. l52 of 2025 is hled by accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section - 528 ofthe Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), ro quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 7169 of 2024 pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, rvhile Criminal Petition No. 5696 of 2025 is hled by accused No. -l to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid C. C 3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos. l, 2 and 4 respectively in the aforesaid C. C.
The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 1718 read with 171E and 188 read with 109 of IPC. 4. On the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 - Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Amberpet Police Station, Hyderabad, the KL,J Crl. P. I o I52 & 5696 of2025 Police have registered a case in Crime No. 333 of 2( 24 against the petitioners herein and another for the aforesaid olfen :es. 5. As per the report given by responder t No. 2, dated 11. 05. 2024 to the police, the allegations Ievellr C against thc petitioners herein are as follows: i) While respondent No. 2 was performing his duty at Vishal Mark Check Post along with SST-2C Team for vt: Liclc checking, one two-wheeier bearing registration No. TS 04-E, -363 1 (t{onda Shine- Black Colour) came from Uppal towards A I berpet. When he stopped him and checked his vehicle, the colr llainant lound Rs.
1,90,000/- in his vehicle's tank cover and also I rund the voter list of NTR Nagar, Saroomagar along with pamphl rts of Chevella Lok Sabha Constiluency Contestant - accused No. 4 ii) When the complainant asked that person re revealed his details as Mr. M. Murali (accused No. 1). While t Le complainant asked about the money, accused No. l told that ht is teaching in Chemistry Department Faculty at Geethanjali Engir :ering College, Cheryala and his colleague - Mr. Sridhar (accused gave that '1o. 2) money and the voter list of NTR Nagar, SaroomagiL KL,J Crl P. No. 152 & 5696 of2025 iii) Mr. Ravinder Reddy, Chairman of the said College and own brother of accused No. 4 rvho is shown as accused No. 3 in FIR, told him to distnbute that money to the voters mentioned in the said voter list and asked them to vote for accused No. 4. Therefore, the complainant in the presence of SST-2C in-charge seized the said money, voter list and pamphlets.
iv) The said acts of the petitioners are in violation of Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and accordingly requested the police to take action against the petitioners as per larv. 6. On receipt of the aforesaid report, the Police, Saifabad Police Station, registered the aforesaid crime. 7. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No. 2 herein as LW. 1, Mr. Jeevan Reddy, SST-2 C-Team and Mr. Balakrishna, HC 8371 of Amberpet P. S. , eye-witnesses, as LWs. 2 and 3. Panch witnesses for seizure of money as LW. 4 and LW. 5. LW. 6 is the Official who issued FIR and LW. 7 is the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid crime who laid the charge sheet. 8. In the statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr. P. C. , respondent No. 2 reiterated the contents of the aforesaid FIR. The KL,J Crt. t'> I o. t52 & 5696 of2025 statements of LWs. 2 and 3 are also on the sar Ie lines.
On consideration of the said statements, the Investigati Lg Officer laid the chargc sheet against the petitioners herein. IIot'ever, the Investigating Ofhcer dropped charge sheet agains- accused No. 3. fhe same was taken on file as C. C. No. 7169 of 202' bv learned IV -abad Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyde for the atbresaid offences 9. To quash the proceedings in the said C. C.. the petitioners herein fited the present criminal petition conti:r ding that the contents of complaint dated I1. 05. 2024 and statemt: Lts olLWs. l to 3 lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offence:. There is no abetment and there is no gratification by the pet tioncrs to any person including Voter with the object of inducing i1m to exercrse any electoral vote in favour of anybody. The said I rpects were not considered by the Investigating Officer. He did 1r, ,t examine any voter to prove the offence under Section - 171'8 of IPC i. e. , bribery. Basing on the statement of respondent No.
2 and statements of two constables, the Investigating Ofiicer la r charge sheet against the petitioners. There are no orders that wer : issued by any Authority and the question of violating the same b1 the petitioners KL,J Crl. l'. No. l52 & 5696 of2025 does not arise. The Investigating Officcr and leamed Magistrate did not follow the procedure laid down under Cr p. C. whilc filing charge sheet and while taking cognizance for the aloresaid offences, more particularly, Section - 188 of IPC against the petitioners. With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid C. C. 10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel fbr the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions in Sunil Kumar Ahuja v. State of Telanganar, Kesineni Srinivasa Rao r,. State of A. P. 2, Syed Taha Arsalan v. The State of Telangana3, Prabhakar v. State of Telanganaa, Sankara Prabhakar v. State of Telanganas, Kishori Lal v. State of M. P. 6, State of Kerala v. S.
Unnikrishnan Nair7, M. Mohan v. State8, Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State of Madhya Pradeshe, Sharif Ahmcd v. State of I 2021 SCC Online TS 30 2 2015 SCC Ooline Hyd. l0 13 l MANUTUO'T4/2021 2023 SCC Online TS 4397 5 2023 SCC Online TS 4400 6 (2007) 10 scc 797 -t (20r5) 9 SCC 639 (201r) 3 SCC 626 2025 SCC Online SC 2l KL.. I Crl. l'. I ) 152 & 5696 ot2025 'Telanganalr Uttar Pradeshr0, Srikanth Chintalapati v. State ,r and li. Ravinder Reddy v. State of Telanganat2. I l. Whereas, Mrs. Shalini Saxena, lct rned counsel represonting Mr. Palle Nagesrvara Rao, learned Pu: ic Prosecutor, would contend that there are serious allegatior s againsl the petitioners herein. They are Faculty Members o1't re College run by thc brothcr of accused No. 4. Accused No. 4 vas contesting candidate as a Mernber of Parliament lrom Chevel i Constitucncy. LWs. 2 and 3 specifically have spoken about the rol playcd by the petitioners in cornmission of offence. Cash of Rs.
90,000/- along 'l u,ith r,'oters list was seized lrom the petitioners. I ere are serious allegations againsl the petitioners. Therefore, the afolcsaid contentions of the petitioners are triable issues and I is lor the trial Court to consider the same. With the said submissilns, she sought to disrniss the present writ petitions. 12. In the light of the above, it is apt to ncl ) that Section - 188 of IPC which deals with 'disobediencc to order duly ro. 2024 scc online scl 726 2023 scc onl. ine TS 3'762 ". M,q. NU[L/t0291202] 't. KL. J Crl. P. No. l52 & 5696 of2025 promulgated by a public servant' and the same is extracted as under: ('188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated bv public scrvant.
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstaiu from a certain act, or to take certain order ivith certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injurl', or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury. to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simplc irnpris-onment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation.
-lt is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm. Kt ,J Crl. l'. \ r. 152 & i696 of2025 Illustration An order is promulgated by z public senanl lawlully elnpowered to prolnulgate strt I order, directing that a rcligious procession shall not l)i s i do\\/t) a cerlain street. A knorvingly disobeys the orc:r, and therebl' causcs danger of riot. A has comtn I ed the offence ciefined in this section. " 13. It is also apt to note that in N. T. Ranr r Rao v. The State of A. P. , rep.
by Public Prosecutorr3 while tt, aling with the o|ences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, learn: i Single Judge held as under: "5) Even il thc allegation that the petitioner c,) rducted public ureetings at three road junctions contra' to the permission accorded for conducting of a publlc neeting only at one specified place is tme, such a I rection under Section 30 of the Police Act, 186[ co,r cl have been given only by the Superintendent or the ssistant ^ Superintendent ol- Police of the District but nct hy any ol their subordinates. If such a permission is granted undcr Section l0 of the Police Act, 1861 and is r iolated, Section 195 ( I ) (a) of Code of Criminal Pr rcedure mandates that the complaint in this regard ha ; to be made by the public servant concemed or sorr e other person to whom such a public serv lnt is administratively subordinate to enable any Cour to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 ol lode of rr. Criminal Petltion No. 5l23 of2009, decided on 17.
09. 2009 KL,J Crl. P. No. l52 & 5696 of2025 Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been commifted under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of lndian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct ofpublic meeting at tfuee road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person.
In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concemed, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the hrdian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at ieast at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the KL. J Crl. l'j. \ ). 152 & 5696 of2025 complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Sect on 195 (l) (a) ofCode ol Crirninal Procedure, has to fa I 7) As the cornplaint has failed due to ts un- sustainability.
the proccedings in their entiretl rave to fail, tbough the lst accused alone approached tlr s Court by u'ay of this Criminal Petition. " 14. in Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The Stt te of Andhra Pradesh, through S. H. O. , P. S. Eluru Rural, \\ est Godavari Districtra letying on various judgments includirr N. T. Rama I Raot3 and thc guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble iupreme Cou( in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lalls, more particrr arly, guideline No. 6, which says that where there is an express legz I bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the conce: Led Act (under which a crinrinal proceeding is instihrted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where the r : is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, provic ing effrcacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad li r the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the procee: Lngs in the said C. C.
by exercising power under Section - 482 of lr. P. C. It was ra. Criminal Petition No. 15248 of 2016, decided on 26. 10. 2016 15. (tggz) Supp. 1 SCC 335 u KL,] Crl. P. No. 152 & 5696 012025 further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) oi Cr. P. C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V. R. O. and it is against the purporl of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr. P. C 15. In view of the above, prima the Investigating facie, Officer did not lollow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 o I Cr. P. C. Further, contents of charge sheet including statements of LWs. I to 3 lack the ingredients of Section - 188 ol IPC. Therefore, the proceedings in the said C. C. for the offence under Section - 188 of IPC are liabte to be quashed against the petitioners herein. 16.
Section - lTlB of IPC deals with 'bribery', white Section - 17lE deals with punishment for bribery, and the same is extracted as under "S. l7lB. Bribery. ( I Whoever: ) (i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or KL. J Crl. P I o. 152 & 5696 of2025 (ii) accepts either for hrmself or for any otlxr person any gratification as a relvard for exerci; ng any such right or for inducing or attempting 1c induce any other person to exercise any sur:i right. commits the offence ol bribery; Provided that a declaration of publLr policy or a promise of public action shall nrr be an oflence under th is section. (2) A person rrho offers. or agrees to give. or, fFers or attempts to procure, a gratiltcation shall btr leemed to give a grati fication.
(3) A person who obtains or agrees to t( Jept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall bc de :med to accept a gratification, and a person who t :cepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he loes not intend to do, or as a reward for doing wha he has not done, shall be deemed to have acc,r ,ted the gratification as a reward. " "S. 171E. Punishment for bribery Whoever commits the offence of bribery : hall be punished with imprisonment of r: iher description for a term which may extend t ) one year, or with hne, or with both; Provided that bribery by treating slrt. l be punished with fine onlY. " 17. Section - 107 deals with 'abetment o1' a thing', while Section - 109 of IPC deals with 'punishment of ab( iment if the act KI,J CrlP No.
l52 & 5696 of2025 abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made fbr its punishment', and the same is extracted as under: "Section 107: Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who: ( I ) Instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takcs place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (3) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal onrission. the doing ofthat thing. " "Section 109: 'punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment. \lhoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is commifted in consequence o[ the abetment. and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished rvith the punishment provided for the offence. " 18.
To attract an offence under Section - 1718 of IPC, the requirement is that he should be a person, who give or at least t4 KI- J Crl. P ) o 152&5696of2025 o flers to givc any gratification as a re\\. ard for :xercising the electoral right or for having exercised such a rirr rt, bv another person. Therc is no mention in the complaint dat- i I 1. 05. 2024 ol respondent No. 2 and in his statement recorded unrl,: Section - l6l of Cr. ['}. C. and also the statements ol I-Ws 2tr d 3 that thc petitioners oll-ered the said alnount as gratificatit l to any voter with an object to induce him to exercise his franchi e in favour of ac0used No-4 19. In Kesineni Srinivasa Rao2, the combi r :d Fligh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that terr r glatification should be undcrstood in the perspective of the recLl i :nt rather than the siver that is to say rvhatever has been paid bv ti: giver should give pleasure or satisfaction to the recipient.
The ter n gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or gratifi( i tion estimable in money. lt embraces all forms of gratihcation in tl: ordinary and simple meaning of term gratification. The scope oi t re meaning of the word gratification is thus very wide and will c -, rer any return which pleases for some favour done. In order tc hold a person guilty of oflering bribe to another person under Strr tion 171-B of t5 KL,J Crl. P. No. 152 & 5696 of2025 IPC, the giver may pay money or kind to the recipient but it must please or satisfy the recipient to exercise any electoral right. 20. In the tight of the above, as discussed above, in the present case, the contents of complaint dated I1. 05. 2024 and the statements of LWs. l to J lack the ingredients of offence under Section - 171B of IPC. 2t In Kishori Lal6, the Apex Courl held in paragraph No. 6 as under: "6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing.
The offence of abetrnent is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing ol a thing when (l) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engagcs with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" Iiterally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abehnent may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is KT,. J Crl ]' I' , 152 & 5696 of2025 committed in consequence ol abetment ttd there is no provision lor the punishmcnt ot . . ch abetmcnt, then the oflender is to be punii rcd u,ith the punistrment provided for the orirr rral ofience. 'Abetted' irt Scction 109 nreans the specrfic offence abetted.
Therefore, the otl: rce lor the abetlnent of which a person is chaL tcd with the abetment is normally linked rvitlr the proved offence. " 22. In the present case, the contents o1'the : rn-rplaint dated 11. Q5. 2024 and the statements of t,Ws. I to 3 lack he insredients of Section - 107 of IPC. 'fhe 21. Investigating Officer did not exam r c any voter or any independent witness to prove that the pcti ioncrs otGred gratitication to him with an object of inducing . r erercise his elcctoral nght in favour of accused \c. i by taking gratification/reward. In the absence ol the same, rr<lsecuting the petitioners for the offence under Section l/ B ol IPC is impermissible. 24. In Bhajan Lalrs, the Apex Couft cauti:1ed that power ofquashing should be exercised very sparingly anrl :ircumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. Wr l : examining a t't KL,J Crl. P No.
152 & 5696rf2025 complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in rhe complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid dou,n certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr. P. C. , which are as under: "(l) Where the allegations made in the firsr information report or the cornplaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not pnma facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in rhe hrst information report and other materials, if any. accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence. justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156( I ) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose l8 KI,J Crl P f,r 152&5696oi2{J25 the courmission of any offence and make o I a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do ot ((Il\ritute a cognizahlc oflertce hut colt:l'l tte onlv u non-crtgnizable oflence. no inveslit. i. l . rn is permitted by a police olficer rvithout ati cr lor of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sect ou 155(2) ofthc Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the [i[ I or complaint are so absurd and inherr:l tly improbable on the basis of which no pl1 ( jnt person can ever reach a just conclusion hat there is sufficient ground for proceec ing against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engralted iu any of the provisions of the - rde or the Act concemed (under which a criri rtal procecding is instituted) to the institutior and continuance of the proceedings and/or r.
'rcre there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efhcacious redress fir the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manif stly attended with mala fide and/or wher,r the proceeding is maliciously instituted u'iJ an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance (tr the KL,I Crt:P. No. l52 & 5696 of2025 accused and with a yiew to spite him due to private and personal grudge. " The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions 25. As discussed above, accused Nos. I and 2 are faculty members of Geethanjali Engineering College, Cheryala, and accused No. 3 is the Chairman of the said College. Accused No. 4 is the brother of accused No. 3. The lnvestigating Officer deleted the name of accused No. 3 fiom the charge sheet. He has filed charge sheet only against the petitioners herein - accused Nos. l, 2 and 4. Accused No. 4 was the contesting candidate for the Parliament Constituency from Chevella Segment.
Thus, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners herein in the aforesaid C. C IS an abuse ofprocess of law. It cannot go on. Thus, the proceedings in the said CC are liable to be quashed. 26. [n view of the aforesaid discussion and the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C. C. No. 7l69 of 2024 pending on the file of the leamed IV Additional Chief Metropolitan KL. J Crl. l'. '; . 152 &5696 ot2025 . le petltiorlers Magistlate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against herein - accuscd Nos. 1, 2 and 4. I pending As a sequcl thereto, miscellaneous petitions, any, in the Criminal l'etitions shall stand closed. K. l. r KSIIMAN, J 1Sth August, 2025 Mgr
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.