logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 093 print Preview print print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 2563 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
Parties : Payal Shankar & Another Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: T.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 24-02-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 127-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 195(1)(a), 2(d), 190, 200 – Quashing – Cognizance – Mandatory Complaint – Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings alleging circulation of election pamphlet without printer/publisher details – Accused charged under Section 188 IPC and Section 127-A RP Act – Contention that no written complaint by competent public servant and absence of essential ingredients for alleged offences – Whether cognizance valid and whether allegations disclose offences.

Court Held – Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings quashed – Cognizance under Section 188 IPC barred in absence of written complaint by public servant as mandated under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC – FIR and charge sheet without jurisdiction – No material to establish printing or publishing of pamphlet by accused; essential ingredients of Section 127-A RP Act not made out – Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law – Proceedings liable to be quashed.

[Paras 9, 10, 11]

Keywords: Quashing – Section 188 IPC – Section 127-A RP Act – Section 195 CrPC – Cognizance Bar – Election Pamphlet – Abuse of Process
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.269 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Adilabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 127-A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2023 at about 16:00 hours, a complaint was received stating that a pamphlet in Telugu relating to petitioner/accused No.1, BJP Candidate from the Adilabad Assembly Constituency, was circulated in daily newspaper in Adilabad town. The pamphlet was printed by Nava Durga Flex, Adilabad. It was alleged that the pamphlet did not contain the names and addresses of the printer and publisher, which is mandatory under Section 127- A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951, relating to printing and publication of election pamphlets and posters. Basing on the same, the case was registered for the above said offences.

3. Heard Sri T.V. Ramana 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry, and that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. He further submitted that there was no specific promulgated order to attract Section 188 IPC, and no material to show printing or publishing any election pamphlets or posters to constitute an offence under Section 127-A of the Representation of the People Act. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this Criminal Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations in the complaint and the material collected during the course of investigation clearly disclosed the involvement of the petitioners in circulating the pamphlets in connection with an election at Adilabad, during the subsistence of the Model Code of Conduct, which prima facie constituted violations attracting the alleged offences. He further submitted that at the stage of quash proceedings, the Court was only required to examine whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence, and a detailed appreciation of evidence was not permissible. Therefore, he 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 are charged for the offences punishable under Sections 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 127-A of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as there is a bar under Section 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C., whereunder, a written complaint has to be filed by the public servant/authorized officer, the Police has to follow the same, but the same is not followed in the present case. Further, at this stage, it is imperative to note the relevant Sections, which are as follows:

7. Section 188 of the I.P.C reads as follows:

               Section 188: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.

               Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment 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 tends 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: It 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.

               Illustration: An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section”.

8. Section 195(i) (a) of Cr.P.C., reads as under:-

               “(i) (a) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

               (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

               (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;”

9. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, a perusal of Section 188 of IPC makes clear that to take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank. Further, Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C., defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C has to be followed. Therefore, the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction.

10. Further, upon perusal of the complaint, it appears that there were no allegations to the effect that the petitioners have printed or published any election pamphlet or poster which did not contain the names and addresses of the printer and publisher so as to attract the penal consequences contemplated under Section 127-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 127-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were not attracted to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the charge sheet culminating in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences stands vitiated. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.269 of 2025 before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Adilabad, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal