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.4090 of 2009 Between: Singareddy Venkata Satish Kumar Reddy and others . .Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor .. Respondent 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.6497 of 2009 Between: P.Ramgopal Reddy and another . .Petitioners And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4090 & 6497 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : Heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. 2) The petitioners are facing prosecution in S.T.C.No.26 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code for violating the permission granted by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pulivendula for conducting a rally/road show and also for the 5th accused threatening the police officers including the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulivendula, who filed the charge sheet by showing his finger at them with angry looks and deterring them which was witnessed by the public and the press reporters. 3) In so far as the alleged offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, for violation of the permission granted by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pulivendula, it is only the said Sub Divisional Police Officer or any person to whom such Sub Divisional Police Officer is subordinate that can make a complaint for any Court to take cognizance in view of Section 195(1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure and the present complaint/charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police is legally incompetent. 4) In so far as the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the perusal of the copies of Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure statements recorded by the police show that the members of the public who were examined made no reference to such threatening and even the Sub Inspectors of police stated that the 5th accused had shown his finger in the presence of the public and media expressing his anguish (AKROSAM) which may not be capable of being construed as a threat. Even if the posture of the 5th accused and the anger in his looks were to be considered to be true, without any further overt acts and without any further consequences, the same will only amount to a triviality which has to be treated as inconsequential in view of the general exception provided by Section 95 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, either offence cannot be considered to be capable of being established against the petitioners, even if further proceedings were to be continued and in view of the illegality of the complaint by the Sub Inspector of police in respect of the offence under Section 188 of the Indian penal Code, the case has to fail. The inherent jurisdiction has to be invoked accordingly. 3) In the result, the further proceedings in S.T.C.No.26 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula are quashed and both the Criminal Petitions are allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 17, 2009 KSH