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 : 3335 of 2009 Between: Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3335 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. 2) The petitioner is facing prosecution for the alleged offences under Section 188 and 341 of Indian Penal Code and Section 30(1)(a) and 32 of the Police Act, 1861. But, the charge sheet/complaint was filed into Court by the Inspector of Police concerning the alleged violation of the orders promulgated under Section 30(1)(a) of the Police Act by the Sub Divisional Police Officer. Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits any Court from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code except on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. As the present charge sheet is not filed by the public servant who promulgated the order said to have been violated, the charge sheet/complaint is incompetent. 3) Even otherwise, it is not clear from the contents of the charge sheet as to whether the alleged order under Section 30(1) of the Police Act was made known to the petitioner by any general or special notice to penalize him for any violation of such an order. The alleged committal of the offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code by the petitioner appears from the material on record to be an omnibus allegation and as the complaint/charge sheet is not filed into Court in accordance with law, it could not have been taken cognizance of by the Court and it is liable to be quashed and hence, quashed. 4) Though the 1st accused in C.C. No.226 of 2009 alone approached this Court with this Criminal Petition, as it is found that the complaint itself is not in accordance with law and could not have been taken cognizance, the proceedings have to be quashed against all the accused in the said case to secure the ends of Justice. 5) Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.226 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narsaraopet, Guntur District are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 15, 2009 KSH