Telangana High Court
Sri. Chikkudu Vamshi Krishna vs The State Of Telangana on 24 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1486 of 2026
DATE: 24.07.2026
BETWEEN:
Chikkudu Vamshi Krishna and others
.....petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7, 10 to 16, 18 to 25 and 27
And
The State of Telangana and another.
.....Respondent/complainant
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7, 10 to
16, 18 to 25 and 27 in C.C.No.245 of 2024 on the file of the
learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise
Cases, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 341 and 188 read with 149 of IPC.
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1486 of 2026
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.08.2018, the
petitioners, along with other Congress party leaders and
workers, allegedly organized a rally from R & B Guest House to
the Municipal Office, Achampet, without obtaining prior
permission, despite prohibitory orders issued under Section 30
of the Police Act being in force. It is alleged that they disobeyed
the lawful directions of the police, continued the rally, and
obstructed the free flow of traffic. Based on the complaint lodged
by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Achampet Police Station, Crime
No.97 of 2018 was registered for the offences under Sections
341 and 188 IPC. After completion of investigation, a charge
sheet was filed, which was taken on file as C.C.No.244 of 2024.
3. Heard Sri S, Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners, as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2,
none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if
the allegations in the charge sheet are accepted in their entirety,
they do not constitute the offences under Sections 341 and 188
IPC. He contended that the prosecution under Section 188 IPC
is barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C., as no complaint in writing was
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1486 of 2026
filed by the public servant whose order was allegedly violated.
He further submitted that the allegations regarding obstruction
to traffic are vague and do not satisfy the ingredients of
wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, and that the criminal
proceedings have been initiated only to harass the petitioners
for participating in a peaceful political demonstration. Therefore,
he prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the
material collected during investigation clearly establishes that
the petitioners, despite the promulgation of prohibitory orders
under Section 30 of the Police Act, organized the rally without
obtaining permission, disobeyed the lawful instructions of the
police, and obstructed the free flow of traffic. He submitted that
the allegations are supported by the statements of eyewitnesses
and other material collected during investigation, and that the
issues raised by the petitioners require appreciation of evidence
during trial. Therefore, at the stage of quashing, the proceedings
ought not to be interfered with and are liable to be continued.
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 were charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 341 and 188 read with 149 of the
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1486 of 2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860. 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
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1486 of 2026as 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
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1486 of 2026
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, it is significant to note the judgement of the
Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v.
Hermareddy 1, wherein in paragraph No.8, it is held as under:
“8. We agree with the view expressed by the
learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the
course of the same transaction an offence for which no
complaint by a Court is necessary under Section 196
(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an offence
for which a complaint of a Court is necessary under
that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible to
split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused
for the offences not mentioned in Section 196 (1)(b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In the instant case, a perusal of the charge sheet discloses
that the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offence
punishable under Section 188 of IPC including other penal
provisions i.e., 341 of IPC. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Hermareddy (supra) it is clear that if the
offences formed part of the same transaction of the offences
1
AIR 1981 SC 1417
7
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.1486 of 2026
contemplated under Section 191 of Cr.P.C., it is not possible to
split up and hold the prosecution of accused for the other
offences. In view of the above, the FIR culminating in taking
cognizance of the aforesaid offences stands vitiated. Hence,
continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is
nothing but abuse of process of law.
12. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.245 of 2024 on the
file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for
Excise Cases, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K.SUJANA, J
Date: 24.07.2026
SAI
