IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 4494 of 2009 Between: Dr.K.Chiranjeevi . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4494 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. 2) The petitioner along with 9 others is facing prosecution in C.C. No.230 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188 and 341 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(x) of Town Nuisance Act and Section 30(1) of Police Act, 1861. The charge sheet/complaint was filed into court by the Inspector of Police, whereas Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that any Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code on the complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Under Section 30 of Police Act, an order can be made only by the Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District and thus obviously the complaint/charge sheet taken cognizance of by the Court was in violation of the statutory mandate of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3) The charge sheet also does not give any particulars of when, where and how such an order under Section 30 of the Police Act was promulgated or any general or special notice of the same was given to any of the accused in the case. While the allegation concerning an offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code was not elaborated as due to wrongfully restraining any person by the activities of any of the accused, the alleged offence under Section 3(x) of Andhra Pradesh Town Nuisances Act, 1899 is in respect of unauthorized use of sound amplifier in any public place and the charge sheet while stating about public being addressed was not specific that any sound amplifiers were so used. Irrespective of the other minor considerations, in view of the violation of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint/charge sheet itself is incompetent and any continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner on such complaint will be an abuse of process of law. 4) As the complaint/charge sheet itself is found to be not in accordance with law, the proceedings in the entire case have to be quashed in the interests of justice though the accused Nos.2 to 10 are not parties to the present criminal petition. 5) Accordingly, the further proceedings in C.C. No.230 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 15, 2009 KSH