IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTYIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9278 OF 2010. Between: K. Lakshmipathi s/o K.Narayanaswamy aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, … Petitioner – A4 R/o. Ananthapur town & District. V/s The State of A.P. Represented by its Public Prosecutor & Anr. … Respondent- complnt. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri N. Aswartha Narayana Counsel for the Respondents : Addl.Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9278 OF 2010 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No. 373 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapur, Ananthapur district. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-A4 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The case has been filed alleging that the petitioner and some other others addressed public gathering by public address system at Tadpatri bus stand circle, which is a junction of old Hyderabad- Bangalore State Highway and Tadpatri Ananthapur State Highway which is prohibited by the order of Superintendent of Police, Ananthapur, vide C.No.887/SB-XII/08, dated 27-1-2009. Further A-1 and A-3 to A-11 accompanied by A-2 along with the vehicle bearing No.AP-35-VI, all along the road show i.e., from Tadpatri bus stand to Saptagiri Circle, which is non-notified road duly using crackers and they concluded the road show at Saptagiri circle i.e., Ananthapur- Rayachoti Highway on 01-2-2009 at 02:20 a.m. They were charge sheeted for the offences under section 188, 283 read with section 149 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ingredients of section 188, 283 read with section 149 IPC are not made out and more particularly the learned counsel would further submit that the prosecution can be initiated only by the public servant as envisaged under section 195 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the instant case, the Sub-Inspector of Police, I-Town Police Station, Ananthapur filed a case against the petitioner and others. An order under Section 30 of Police Act, 1861 can be promulgated by the Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Police Officer or Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District. Cognizance under section 188 IPC can be taken only if the complaint is made in writing by the public servant mentioned in section 195 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, charge sheet is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapur I-Town Police Station. There is no material to show that any order was promulgated by the competent authority or that the cognizance was taken when the complaint made in writing by the public servant concerned, as provided under section 195 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings in CC.No. 373 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapur, Ananthapur district are liable to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 20/09/2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9278 OF 2010 20-09-2010 I s L