THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10010 OF 2010 DATED: 16-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings in C.C.No.264 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 4th respondent-State. None appeared for the respondents 1 to 3. Perused the record. 3. Based on a complaint given by the respondents 1 to 3, police registered a case in Cr.No.28 of 2009 for the offence under Section 188 IPC and after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the said offence and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.264 of 2010. According to the prosecution, on 23-03-2009, petitioners violated the Model Code of Conduct by taking a procession, along with a number of vehicles as convoy, through the streets of Polavaram in connection with the campaigning of the general elections of HOP and APLA, without taking any permission from the concerned authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the offence alleged being charged under Section 188 IPC, cognizance of the same by the learned Magistrate is bad in law in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. He would further submit that though the First Information Report was registered and charge sheet was filed under Section 188 IPC, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Disfigurement of Open Places and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable Posters and Advertisements Act, 1997 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), which is also bad in law as there is no absolute allegation pertaining to the said offence, either in the First Information Report or in the charge sheet. 5. Section 195 Cr.P.C mandates that no Court shall take cognizance, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he was administratively subordinate in respect of the offences under Sections 172 and 188 IPC. 6. In the present case, cognizance is taken on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the police and not on the basis of any complaint given by the concerned authority. Secondly, respondents, who are the Revenue Inspector; Police Constable and Photographer, are admittedly not the concerned authorities, who issued the orders, the violation of which is complained of. In fact, no such order is also referred to either in the First Information Report or in the charge sheet to show that any restrictions are imposed in the manner of conducting the election campaign. In the absence of promulgation of any such order and there being no material on record to show that any such order pertaining to the Model Code of Conduct was issued, prohibiting the activity undertaken by the petitioners, the question of violation of such order, constituting an offence under section 188 IPC, does not arise. The prosecution has not placed on record any material to show that the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 188 IPC are attracted at all. Under those circumstances, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC is bad in law. Further, there is absolutely no allegation either in the First Information Report or in the charge sheet, pertaining to the ingredients of the offence under Section 4 of the Act. In the absence of any such allegation, taking cognizance for the said offence under Section 4 of the Act is equally unsustainable. It is therefore held that continuance of further proceedings in C.C.No.264 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem would not serve any useful purpose and therefore it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the further proceedings in C.C.No.264 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem, and accordingly they are quashed. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th December, 2010 Tsy