IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11307 OF 2010 Between:- Gali Muddu Krishnama Naidu …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11307 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.163 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nagiri, Chittoor District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 3. Based on a news item published in the media, the police registered a case against the petitioner in Cr.No.22 of 2009 for the offence under Section 188 IPC and the police, after investigation, filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in STC.No.163 of 2009. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that several other cases pertaining to the same alleged offence were registered against different accused on the eve of the recent elections and criminal petitions filed seeking quashing of proceedings in those cases were all allowed on the ground that the complaints were not instituted in accordance with law. Copy of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4412 of 2009 is also placed before the Court, a perusal of which shows that in the said case also, similar allegations pertaining to the same offence were made. 5. As seen from the above order, it was held by this Court that if there is any violation of the order promulgated by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, within the meaning of Section 188 IPC, the complaint ought to be filed by the SDPO or any other person to whom such SDPO is administratively subordinate and otherwise no Court is competent to take cognizance of such a complaint in accordance with Section 195(1) (a) of Cr.P.C. 6. The reasoning furnished in the above order for quashing the further proceedings in that case holds good even in respect of the present case also, inasmuch as the offence alleged is the same. Hence, the present case stands covered by the order passed by this Court referred supra. 7. Accordingly and for the same reasons mentioned in the above said order, further proceedings against the petitioner in S.T.C.No.163 of 2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nagiri, Chittoor District, are held unsustainable and 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 12th November, 2010 Lrkm.