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 : 4495 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.4495 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 is facing prosecution in C.C. No.12 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188 and 290 of Indian Penal Code. The alleged violation of the conditions of the proceedings of the Sub Divisional Police Officer is sought to be prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police through the charge sheet/complaint which was taken cognizance by the Court. 3) If there is any violation of the order promulgated by the Sub Divisional Police Officer in this regard, within the meaning of Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, the complaint ought to be filed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer or any other person to whom such Sub Divisional Police Officer is administratively subordinate and otherwise no Court is competent to take cognizance of such a complaint in accordance with Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The alleged offence punishable under Section 290 of Indian Penal Code for committing public nuisance is ancillary and consequential to the committal of an offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code. As the complaint/charge sheet by the Sub Inspector of police is in violation of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings should not be continued in the interests of justice. 4) It is seen from the charge sheet that the alleged violation of the proceedings of the Sub Divisional Police Officer was alleged to be by the petitioner only and the 1st accused in the case appeared to have been impleaded merely because he was the person who obtained the permission for holding the public meeting and therefore, it will be an abuse of process of law to allow continuance of the proceedings against him also, more so, when the complaint itself has not been legally instituted before the Court. 5) Therefore, further proceedings in C.C. No.12 of 2009 on the file of 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 15, 2009 KSH