Police Report Can't Form Basis For Cognizance U/S 188 IPC: Telangana High Court Quashes Traffic Obstruction Case Against Ex-MP
The Telangana High Court quashed a case against former MP Nalamada Uttamkumar Reddy in connection with a 2019 roadshow during the Huzurnagar Assembly by-election, holding that prosecution for an offence under Section 188 IPC could not have been initiated on a police report due to bar under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC.Section 188 IPC pertains to disobedience to order duly promulgated by public...
The Telangana High Court quashed a case against former MP Nalamada Uttamkumar Reddy in connection with a 2019 roadshow during the Huzurnagar Assembly by-election, holding that prosecution for an offence under Section 188 IPC could not have been initiated on a police report due to bar under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC.
Section 188 IPC pertains to disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Section 195(1)(a) CrPC states that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of IPC except "on the complaint" in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
Justice K. Sujana held that once the case was founded on an offence under Section 188 IPC without the requisite written complaint to the Magistrate by the concerned public servant, the FIR, charge sheet and cognizance order were all without jurisdiction.
"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..." the court said.
The Court further held that since the offence under Section 341 IPC was alleged as part of the same transaction, it could not be split up and allowed to survive independently. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, the Court held that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by M. Nagendar, then Inspector of Survey and District Survey Officer, Suryapet, who was working as MCC-II officer for the Huzurnagar by-election. According to the complaint, on 18.10.2019 at about 8 pm, leaders of the INC party, including Uttam Kumar Reddy and Revanth Reddy, conducted a roadshow at Mattampally village in support of party candidate Padmavathi. It was alleged that the leaders addressed the gathering from an open-top vehicle and that a large crowd assembled on the main road, temporarily obstructing traffic and causing inconvenience to the general public. On that basis, the case was registered for offences under Sections 341 and 188 read with 34 IPC.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire prosecution was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 195(1)(a) CrPC, which mandates that no court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC except on a written complaint by the concerned public servant or a superior officer. It was submitted that in the present case, proceedings were initiated on the basis of a police report, which was impermissible in law.
The State and the complainant opposed the petition, contending that the allegations disclosed violation of election rules and the Model Code of Conduct, and that since investigation had been completed and a charge sheet had been filed, the issues raised by the petitioner ought to be left for trial.
Rejecting that submission, the High Court examined Sections 188 IPC and 195(1)(a) CrPC and held that for an offence under Section 188 IPC, there must be a written complaint to the Magistrate by the public servant concerned or a superior officer. In the present case, however, the prosecution had proceeded through an FIR and charge sheet, which the Court held were legally incompetent for such an offence.
Holding that further continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.400 of 2023 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.
Case Title: Nalamada Uthamkumar Reddy v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.8867 of 2025
Appearance: Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar for the petitioner; Sri M. Ramachander Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State; Sri Kuppala Ujwal Babu for respondent No.2.