1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.165 of 2019 on the file of the Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani. The petitioner herein is sole accused in the said case. The offence alleged against him is under Section - 188 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri P. Shravan Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

3. The contents of the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.165 of 2019 would reveal that the accused is an Advocate and representative of Congress Party and resident of Manthani. On 14-11-2018, one campaign vehicle bearing No.TS-07-ARTR-1250 was observed at Bathukamma Starch, in front of SBI Main Branch, Manthani, belonged to congress party having three speaker permission vide Lr.No.E/564/2018-09, dated 04-11-2019 of Returning Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, 24 Assembly Constituency. But the same was installed with six speakers by the petitioner / accused, who is representative of Congress party despite having permission of one mike and thereby deviated the norms of MCC. LW-1 - MCC Officer/ defacto complainant, LW-2 – Police Official and LW-3 – video-grapher and LW-4 is eye witness. Then, LW.1 secured their presence and drew panchanama and, thereafter, registered a case in Crime No.207 of 2018 for the offence under Section -188 of IPC against accused / petitioner herein. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet and the same was taken on file by the Magistrate vide C.C.No.165 of 2019 for the aforesaid offence.

4. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, dated 17.09.2009 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as under:

“5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of 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 committed 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 Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three 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 concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian 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 least 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 complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail.

7) As the complaint has failed due to its unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition.”

5. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, dated 26.10.2016 relying various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, dated 17.09.2009 and also guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, held that the proceedings in the said C.C. were quashed by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It also further held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.

6. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncements, coming to the case on hand, the only allegation against the petitioner herein is that he being the representative of Congress Party, on 14-11-2018 ran campaign vehicle bearing No.TS-07-AR-TR-1250 at Bathukamma Starch, in front of SBI Main Branch, Manthani, having three speaker permission vide Lr.No.E/564/2018-09, dated 04-11-2019 of Returning Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, 24 Assembly Constituency with installation of six speakers despite having permission of one mike and thereby deviated the norms of MCC. Thus, he has committed an offence under Section - 188 of IPC. The complaint was filed by LW-1 – MCC Officer and EO Manthani Sub-Inspector of Police, Manthani Police Station registered a case and filed charge sheet, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and, therefore, complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. Thus, applying the principle laid down in the above said judgments, the proceedings in C.C.No.165 of 2019 are liable to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein.

7. Accordingly, the present Criminal petition is allowed and the further proceedings in C.C.No.165 of 2019 on the file of the Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, are hereby quashed against the petitioner - accused.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.