THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10011 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.191 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the 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.18 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 188, 143 and 290 IPC and after investigation, filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.191 of 2010. According to the prosecution, on 03-03-2009, in connection with the ensuing general elections for the Legislative Assembly, petitioners have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly near Sujata Irrigation Guest house, which is a public place, and arranged loud speakers and tents, without taking any permission from the concerned authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A1 to A6 would contend that taking cognizance of the offence under Section 188 IPC is bad in law as the same is hit by the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. 5. Section 195 of the 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. The prosecution alleges that petitioners along with others constituted unlawful assembly, punishable under Section 143 IPC. Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly as meaning an assembly of five or more persons if the common object of the persons is any of the five items mentioned therein. 7. The First Information Report or the charge sheet does not disclose that the petitioners have constituted themselves into unlawful assembly for achieving any of the five purposes mentioned in Section 141 IPC. In the absence of any such allegation, mere gathering of persons does not amount to unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC. As the ingredients of the offence under Section 141 IPC are not attracted, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 143 IPC is unsustainable. The prosecution further alleges that the accused have committed an offence under Section 290 IPC by causing public nuisance. Section 268 IPC defines public nuisance as an act of illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public. There is absolutely no allegation in the First Information Report or the charge sheet that the election meeting conducted by the petitioners and others caused any annoyance to the general public. No complaint from any member of the public complaining of any nuisance on account of the public meeting conducted by the petitioners is admittedly received. In the absence of any material to show that holding of the public meeting in connection with the campaigning for the general elections by the petitioners caused any injury, danger or nuisance to the public, the ingredients of the offence under Section 268 IPC do not get attracted and when it is so, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 290 IPC is also equally unsustainable. 8. In the circumstances, it is held that continuance of further proceedings in C.C. No.191 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem against the petitioners would not serve any useful purpose and it is therefore held a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings in C.C.No.191 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem, and they are accordingly quashed. 9. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th December, 2010 Tsy