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 : 2579 of 2009 Between: Konidela Siva Shankar Vara Prasad @ Chiranjeevi . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.2579 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. 2) The petitioner is facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 188 and 149 of Indian Penal Code for alleged violation of the orders issued by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kurnool in C.No.184/SDPO-K/2009, dated 06.02.2009 and the consequential obstruction to the traffic. However, the charge sheet/complaint was filed into Court by the Sub Inspector of Police for the alleged violation of the order promulgated by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, which is in violation of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that in respect of any offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, 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 is administratively subordinate. The complaint by the Sub Inspector of Police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code could not have been therefore taken cognizance of by the trial Court against the petitioner or even against the other three accused who are not parties to this criminal petition. 3) Concerning the alleged offences under Sections 143 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, the very definition of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 of Indian Penal Code requires the assembly to be of 5 or more persons and therefore any prosecution in respect of offences punishable under Sections 143 and 149 of Indian Penal Code could not have been against only the 4 accused and the complaint/charge sheet does not disclose positively that any others are involved in the alleged offences. 4) The allegation about the committal of an offence under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code in the charge sheet is too omnibus and general in nature and the memorandum of evidence attached to the charge sheet only mentions about some inconvenience caused to the public by the road show, but not about the road show resulting in the wrongful restraint of any person, punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code. 5) Therefore, as the complaint/charge sheet is not in accordance with law and for the other reasons, the Criminal Petition should succeed and though the accused 2 to 4 are not before the Court in this Criminal Petition, as the complaint/charge sheet is held to be in not in accordance with law, the proceedings in the case should be quashed as a whole. 6) Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.353 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 15, 2009 KSH