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 : 4889 of 2009 Between: Dr.K.Chiranjeevi . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.4889 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent. 2 ) The Sub Inspector of Police, Parchur Police Station filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and another in respect of alleged offences punishable under Sections 188 and 290 of Indian Penal Code for the alleged violation of the proceedings of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chirala. The conditions imposed in the mike permission granted by the Sub Divisional Police Officer were alleged to have been violated amounting to not only an offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, but also committing public nuisance within the meaning of Section 290 of Indian Penal Code. 3) If the orders of the Sub Divisional Police Officer were so violated and the consequential offences have been committed, it is the Sub Divisional Police Officer or some other public servant to whom the said Sub Divisional Police Officer is administratively subordinate that can complain in writing under Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure for any Court to take cognizance of such an offence. The trial Court taking cognizance of such an offence on the complaint/charge sheet by the Sub Inspector of Police is obviously illegal and the alleged offence under Section 290 of Indian Penal Code is only consequential to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not independent of the same. As the present charge sheet/complaint is in violation of the said mandatory provision, further criminal proceedings have to be quashed not only against the petitioner but also against the other accused in the interests of justice. 3) Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.10 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parchur are quashed and accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 15, 2009 KSH