IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 5324 of 2009 Between: N.T.Rama Rao . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5324 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri K.Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. 2) The crime is registered against the petitioner and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188 and 283 of the Indian penal Code and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861. The first information report was registered on the basis of a police report drafted by the Sub Inspector of Police and the same itself refers to prior permission being obtained for conducting the road show and canvassing for the elections. The grievance of the Sub Inspector appears to be that on the way to the permitted place, the petitioner and others stopped their vehicles and the petitioner addressed the public for about 20 minutes, which resulted in obstruction to the traffic. 3) If the canvassing for the election and conduct of road show were permitted, the road show will necessarily cause some dislocation to the road traffic and such dislocation if not with any noticeable and considerable disadvantage to the public at large, has to be construed as triviality which falls within the general exception recognized by Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. The extent of the obstruction caused to the regular traffic is not intelligible from the occurrence report to assume that such obstruction would have amounted to an offence under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code. While no culpable mens rea can be attributed to the petitioner or any others on the admitted facts as they were admittedly proceeding to the place, where they were permitted to conduct the canvassing and the road show, any violation of the said permission by the conduct of the petitioner and others can only be the subject of a complaint within the meaning of Section 195(1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The prior permission referred to in the occurrence report could be only under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861, which could have been promulgated only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the district. Any violation of it, amounting to an offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code can be taken cognizance by the Court only on the complaint of the public servant concerned or his superior and by no other means. If so, any continuance of the investigation by the Sub Inspector of Police could not have led to any successful prosecution. 4) The ingredients of the three offences alleged against the petitioner and others cannot under the circumstances be possibly believed to be capable of being successfully prosecuted by continuance of the proceedings in the crime and hence, the proceedings have to be quashed in the interests of justice. 5) Therefore, the further proceedings in Crime No.42 of 2009 of Kasibugga Police Station, Srikakulam District are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 17, 2009 KSH