High CourtsSingle Bench

Kuchakulla Ravinder Reddy vs The State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 3 January 2012 · Citation: (2012) 01 AP CK 0013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Elango, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 195(1)(a) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 188, 290, 291
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 109 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 394 words

Raja Elango

1.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-6 seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.177 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District.

2.

Heard.

3.

The Sub Inspector of Police, Wanaparthy Town Police Station filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and six others in respect of alleged offences punishable under Sections 188, 290, 291 of IPC and Section 32 of A.P. Police Act, for the alleged violation of the conditions imposed in the mike permission granted in favour of the accused to conduct road show in Wanaparthy town on 28.02.2009.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Criminal Petition No.1463 of 2010 filed by A-1 in the present case, this Court by order dated 09.11.2010 quashed the further proceedings against A-1, hence, prayed to extend the same benefit to the petitioner herein.

5.

Perused the complaint and other material placed on record. As seen from the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1463 of 2010, which is placed before this Court, it is evident that by following the reasoning furnished in similar cases being Crl.P.Nos.4495, 4889, 4494 and 2579 of 2009, wherein similar allegations pertaining to the same offences were made, for quashing the further proceedings in those cases, the proceedings against A-1 in the present case were quashed. In the said similar cases, it was held that if there is any violation of the order promulgated by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, within the meaning of Section 188 IPC, the complaint ought to be filed by the SDPO or any other person to whom such SDPO is administratively subordinate and otherwise no Court is competent to take cognizance of such a complaint in accordance with Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is of the view that the reasoning furnished in the above similar cases for quashing the proceedings in those cases holds good even in respect of the present case also, inasmuch as the offences alleged are the same.

6.

For the abovementioned reasons, further proceedings against the petitioner/A-6 in C.C.No.177 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District, are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

7.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.