IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 4658 of 2009 Between: Gattamaneni Chenchu Ramaiah . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4658 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. 2) The petitioners are facing prosecution for the alleged offences punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act alleging that the 2nd accused allowed the 1st accused to use his vehicle for canvassing, in violation of the orders of the Election Commission. 3) Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 only defines and deals with corrupt practices which are not considered to be criminal in nature and it is evident from chapter-3 of the said Act, which defines electoral offences specifically that all corrupt practices covered by Section 123 may not amount to a punishable offence under law. What electoral offence was committed by the petitioners is not evident from the first information report or the remand report available on record. Similarly if an offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code were to be attributed to the petitioners, the appropriate authority, who should report, investigate into and file a complaint before the Court, will be an officer functioning under the Election Commission and performing duties in connection with the elections, who ultimately comes under Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that a public servant whose order was violated alone can complain to the Court in respect of the offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code or a public servant to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate. Apart from the absence of specification in the first information report as to which provision of law was specifically violated by the petitioners in the 2nd accused allegedly allowing the 1st accused to use his vehicle, the continuance of criminal proceedings by the police in this regard is hence untenable. 4) In view of the technical violations, the further criminal proceedings do not appear to be required in the interest of justice. The proceedings have to be therefore quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 5) Accordingly, further proceedings in Crime No.54 of 2009 of V.V.Palem Police Station, Prakasam District are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 15, 2009 KSH