HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3014 of 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash F.I.R in Crime No.106 of 2008 dated 22.05.2008, registered for offences punishable under Sections 177-H and 188 I.P.C. 2. The Petitioners are A.1 and A.2 in the above said crime. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the crime. 4. A.1 and A.2 alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 171-H and 188 I.P.C on the ground that A.1 and A.2 were canvassing for the bye election to Hanmakonda Parliamentary Constituency in two Tata Safari Vehicles belonging to Smk.Konda Surekha, contesting candidate from Indian National Congress party and N. Ashok Reddy without any registration numbers and therefore the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghanpur P.S., Warangal arrested them and seized the vehicles on 22.05.2008 at 03.00 p.m., at Ghanpur and thereby they committed the alleged offences. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for A.1 and A.2 that there is no allegation of any illegal payments for the purpose of election and it is also not a case of dis-obedience from the part of A.1 and A.2 of an order duly promulgamated by a public servant in connection with the elections itself to attract the provisions of Sections 171-H and 188 I.P.C and further in-fact the vehicles were having registration numbers in support of which Xerox copies are filed before the Court and false case was foisted against them. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the application claiming that there is incriminating material against the petitioners. 7. It is to be seen as to whether the allegations made against the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 constitute the offences punishable under Section 171-H and 188 I.P.C. and there are merits in the petition. “Section 171-H contemplates:- ILLEGAL PAYMENTS, IN CONNECTION WITH AN ELECTION: Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in apy other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees: Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate.” “Section 188 contemplates:- Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.-- Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both: and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 8. It is pertinent to note here that there is no allegation from the prosecution to the effect that A.1 and A.2 involved in spending any amounts illegally in connection with the said parliamentary election to attract Section 171-H I.P.C. Similarly there is also no allegation of dis- obedience on their part of any promulgamation issued by a public servant to attract section 188 I.P.C. Further the Photostat copies of the corresponding registration certificates of the two vehicles in the name of N.Askoh Reddy and Konda Surekha show that the two vehicles were in-fact registered and they falsify that the vehicles were without any registration numbers. 9. The circumstances enumerated clearly show that a false case was foisted against A.1 and A.2 for the reasons best known to the concerned police. Hence the F.I.R is to be quashed. In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 12-08-2011. Vjl