N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF 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.5326 of 2009 Between: N.T. Ramarao, S/o. Harikrishna, aged 27 years, Occ: Cine Artist, R/o.C-56, Road No.1, Film Nagar, Hyderabad. …Petitioner / Accused No.1 AND The State of A.P., Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. and another. …Respondents / Complainants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5326 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 copy of the charge sheet, filed by the Sub Inspector of Police before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram, shows that the petitioner and 5 others are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 188 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences were alleged to have been committed due to violation of the permission issued by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalli and to have resulted in obstruction to the public and the traffic due to conduct of road show at a different place. If the basis for the complaint/charge sheet is violation of the permission granted by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Anakapalli, any complaint in respect thereof could have been given only by the Sub Divisional Police Officer or by any other person to whom such Sub Divisional Police Officer is administratively subordinate in respect of an offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in view of Section 195(1(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, this complaint filed by the Sub Inspector of Police before the Court is legally incompetent. 3) The offence punishable under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code alleged against the petitioner and others due to obstruction to the public and the traffic does not appear to be attempted to be proved through any witness as seen from the memorandum of evidence appended to the charge sheet. Even otherwise, the obstruction could not have been with any culpable mens rea on the admitted facts. Even otherwise, the obstruction is not stated to be of such magnitude as would require prosecution of the petitioner and others and could not have been considered to be a triviality within the meaning of the general exception provided by Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged offence under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code is obviously in consequence of the alleged offence committed under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, which could not have been prosecuted by the Sub Inspector of Police. Under the circumstances, any continuance of the proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. 4) In the result, the further proceedings in pursuance of the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Butchaiahpeta Police Station before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 17, 2009 KSH