IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.2779 of 2010 Between: Ponnada Venkata Satish Kumar @ P.Satish Kumar … Petitioner And: The State, S.H.O., I Polavaram PS & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.2779 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner-A.2 in CC No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mummidavaram. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State. 3. The petitioner is accused of offence under Section 188 read with 34 of IPC. According to the prosecution on 03.04.2009 at 11 a.m. the petitioner-A.2, who was contesting in the general election 2009 from Mummidivaram Assembly Constituency, started in a procession from Muramalla village, for filing of nomination along with 40 workers, without obtaining any prior permission from the election authorities to lead the procession and thereby, disobeyed the orders promulgated and violated the Model Code of conduct. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions stated that the said orders were not issued by the 2nd respondent, but was issued by the Village Revenue Officer and that too on 04.04.2009. Thus, by the date of commission of the alleged offence on 03.04.2009, no orders were promulgated in respect of the Model Code. The said orders are said to have been issued only on the next day i.e., 04.04.2009. 5. Section 195((a)(i) Cr.P.C., lays down that ‘no Court shall take cognizance of the offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC, except where the complaint is initiated by public servant in writing or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate’. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the Village Revenue Officer, who is subordinate to the 2nd respondent, issued the orders, but the copy of the said order is not produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Village Revenue Officer has no competence to issue such orders. 6. Be that as it may, having regard to admitted fact that the orders were issued only on 04.04.2009 i.e., subsequent to the date of the alleged offence, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mummidivaram are not sustainable and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the same. 7. It is therefore considered fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioner and accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mummidivaram are held liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed as stated above. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14.12.2010 bss