IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD (3RD) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5042 of 2010 Between: M. Thippeswamy … Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.5042 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner in STC No.5 of 2005 (relating to Cr.No.65 of 2004 of PS Palamaner) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Based on a report given by the Sub Inspector of Police, Palamaner, a case in Cr.No.65 of 2004 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 32 of the Police Act and Section 188 of IPC, alleging that the petitioner, who was contesting candidate in the assembly election held in the year 2004, violated the orders passed by the concerned authority, by using number of vehicles in excess of the permissible number, for filing nomination on 07.04.2004. 4. It is not disputed that under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. the Court shall not take cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC, except on the written complaint by the public servant, who promulgated the order or to whom he is immediate subordinate. In the present case, admittedly, the complaint was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police and the charge sheet was also filed by the Sub Inspector of Police himself and not by the concerned authority and thus, there is clear violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Taking cognizance of the offence under Section 118 IPC and Section 32 of the Police Act, is therefore unsustainable and further proceedings against the petitioner in STC No.5 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, are held liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 03.12.2010 bss