Proceedings based on police report dismissed due to lack of requisite public servant complaint, as per Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C.
In a significant development, the Telangana High Court, presided over by Justice Smt. K. Sujana, has quashed the criminal proceedings against Anumula Revanth Reddy, a prominent leader of the Indian National Congress. The case, registered under C.C. No. 396 of 2023, involved allegations of traffic obstruction during a roadshow conducted without requisite permissions in Janapahad village during the Huzurnagar by-elections on October 18, 2019.
The proceedings were initially based on charges under Sections 341 and 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), following a police report. However, the High Court found that the necessary statutory requirement under Section 195(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was not fulfilled, as no written complaint was filed by the concerned public servant or their administrative superior. This procedural lapse rendered the cognizance taken by the Magistrate as without jurisdiction.
The counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. Giri Kumar, successfully argued that the absence of a written complaint from a public servant barred the court from taking cognizance under Section 188 IPC, as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. The High Court concurred with this argument, citing precedents including the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hermareddy, which emphasized that proceedings for offences forming part of the same transaction cannot be split.
The Public Prosecutor contended that the roadshow led to a significant blockage of traffic, thereby justifying the charges. However, the court noted that such factual issues are to be appreciated during trial, and the procedural requirements for initiating proceedings under Section 188 IPC were not met.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Revanth Reddy, quashing the proceedings as an abuse of the process of law. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural mandates, particularly the need for a written complaint by the competent authority when prosecuting offences under Section 188 IPC.
Bottom line:-
Proceedings under Section 188 IPC cannot be initiated based on a police report; a written complaint by the concerned public servant or their administrative superior is mandatory as per Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 188, 341; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 195(1)(a).
Anumula Revanth Reddy v. State of Telangana, (Telangana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2935797
