Introduction:

The Telangana High Court has delivered a significant judgment reaffirming the procedural safeguards governing prosecutions under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that criminal proceedings initiated without complying with the mandatory statutory procedure are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In a batch of criminal petitions, the Court set aside multiple FIRs and criminal proceedings registered against Anumula Revanth Reddy, now the Chief Minister of Telangana, arising out of roadshows conducted during the 2019 Huzurnagar Assembly by-election campaign. The Court held that the prosecution suffered from a fundamental legal defect because cognizance for the offence under Section 188 IPC had been taken on the basis of a police report instead of a written complaint by the competent public servant as mandated by law.

The judgment was delivered by Justice K. Sujana while deciding Criminal Petition No. 5020 of 2026 and connected matters. The petitions challenged several FIRs registered against the petitioner for allegedly obstructing public roads, causing inconvenience to commuters, violating election permissions, and disobeying lawful directions issued by public authorities during election campaigning.

The allegations stemmed from a series of election roadshows organized by the Indian National Congress during the Huzurnagar by-elections in October 2019. One of the principal allegations related to a roadshow conducted on 18 October 2019 at Janapahad village, where the petitioner, along with other Congress leaders, allegedly led a political procession between approximately 2:07 p.m. and 2:50 p.m. According to the prosecution, the procession blocked the public road for nearly forty-three minutes, disrupting traffic and causing inconvenience to commuters. It was further alleged that several vehicles participated in the procession without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority.

Following investigation, the police filed charge sheets alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 188 of the IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, and criminal proceedings were registered as C.C. No. 396 of 2023 and other connected cases.

Apart from the Janapahad incident, similar FIRs were lodged regarding roadshows held at Huzurnagar town, Nereducherla, and Kalmalacheruvu Crossroad in Garidepally. In one such case, it was alleged that nearly 10,000 supporters and around 500 vehicles participated in the political procession, resulting in prolonged obstruction of traffic, use of DJ systems beyond the permitted limit, and interference with the election campaign of rival candidates.

Aggrieved by the continuation of these criminal proceedings, the petitioner approached the Telangana High Court seeking quashing of all the FIRs and consequential proceedings.

The central question before the High Court was whether prosecution under Section 188 IPC could validly proceed on the basis of a police report when the statute expressly requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant before the Magistrate can assume jurisdiction.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner contended that the criminal proceedings were legally unsustainable because the mandatory ingredients of the alleged offences were completely absent. With respect to Section 341 IPC, it was argued that there was no material whatsoever demonstrating that the petitioner had voluntarily restrained any individual from proceeding in a lawful direction, which constitutes the essential ingredient of wrongful restraint.

It was submitted that mere participation in a political roadshow, even if it resulted in temporary congestion, could not automatically constitute the offence of wrongful restraint unless there was clear evidence of intentional obstruction directed against identifiable persons.

The petitioner further argued that the prosecution under Section 188 IPC was fundamentally defective since the statutory procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been followed. According to the petitioner, Section 195 CrPC creates an express bar against courts taking cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC except upon a written complaint made by the concerned public servant or another officer administratively superior to him.

Counsel submitted that in the present case no such complaint had ever been filed before the Magistrate. Instead, the entire prosecution was initiated through an FIR, followed by police investigation and filing of a charge sheet. Since the Magistrate assumed jurisdiction solely on the basis of the police report, the cognizance itself was illegal and without jurisdiction.

The petitioner also relied upon judicial precedents holding that statutory safeguards governing prosecution cannot be bypassed by adopting alternative procedural routes. Consequently, it was argued that the entire criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law.

The State opposed the petitions by contending that the petitioner and other political leaders had conducted election roadshows in clear violation of the permissions granted by the Returning Officer. It was submitted that the political processions substantially exceeded the permitted duration and resulted in prolonged blockage of public roads.

According to the prosecution, thousands of supporters and hundreds of vehicles participated in the roadshows, thereby causing serious disruption to traffic and inconvenience to the general public. It was also alleged that loud DJ systems were used in violation of the permission granted by the election authorities and that the roadshows interfered with the campaign activities of rival candidates.

The State argued that the investigation had collected sufficient material demonstrating that the petitioner violated lawful restrictions imposed by public authorities during the election period and had consequently committed offences under Sections 341 and 188 IPC.

It was therefore submitted that the charge sheets disclosed prima facie material warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Court’s Judgment:

After examining the FIRs, charge sheets, statutory provisions, and the legal principles governing prosecution under Section 188 IPC, the Telangana High Court held that the entire prosecution suffered from a jurisdictional defect rendering the proceedings unsustainable.

Justice K. Sujana first examined the statutory framework regulating prosecution for offences under Section 188 IPC. The Court observed that although the offence criminalises disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant, the legislature has consciously imposed a procedural safeguard before criminal courts can take cognizance of such offences.

The Court noted that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly prohibits any court from taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC except upon a written complaint made by the public servant concerned or by another public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

Referring to the definition of “complaint” contained in Section 2(d) CrPC, the Court explained that such complaint must be presented before the Magistrate with the intention of initiating judicial proceedings. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate is required to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 200 CrPC before taking cognizance.

In the present case, however, none of these mandatory statutory requirements had been followed.

Instead of filing a written complaint before the Magistrate, the investigating agency registered FIRs, conducted police investigations, prepared charge sheets, and forwarded those reports to the Magistrate. The Magistrate, in turn, took cognizance solely on the basis of the police report.

Justice Sujana held that such a course of action was completely contrary to the statutory mandate. Since the law specifically requires initiation of prosecution through a complaint by the competent public servant, the police could not substitute that procedure by filing a charge sheet after investigation.

The Court categorically observed that the FIR, the investigation conducted pursuant thereto, the charge sheets, and the cognizance taken by the Magistrate were all without jurisdiction.

Having reached this conclusion, the Court then considered the impact of the invalid prosecution under Section 188 IPC upon the remaining charge under Section 341 IPC.

In this regard, the Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, wherein it was held that when several offences arise out of the same transaction and one of those offences attracts the statutory bar contained in Section 195 CrPC, the prosecution cannot artificially segregate the remaining offences to sustain criminal proceedings independently.

Applying this principle, Justice Sujana observed that the allegations under Sections 341 and 188 IPC formed part of the same transaction, namely the conduct of election roadshows during the Huzurnagar by-election campaign. Since prosecution for the principal offence under Section 188 itself was legally incompetent, it was impermissible to split the transaction and continue prosecution only for the accompanying offence.

The Court held that once cognizance under Section 188 IPC was vitiated owing to non-compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure, the entire prosecution arising from the same factual transaction also stood vitiated.

The High Court further observed that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly where the very foundation of the prosecution lacked legal validity.

Consequently, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent misuse of the criminal justice process.

The Court accordingly quashed the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 396 of 2023 before the Principal Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

The Court extended identical relief in the connected criminal petitions concerning the remaining roadshows held at Huzurnagar town, Nereducherla, and Kalmalacheruvu Crossroad, since all the FIRs were founded upon substantially similar allegations and suffered from the same procedural defect.

The judgment reiterates an important principle of criminal procedure that statutory safeguards regulating prosecution are not mere technical formalities but mandatory requirements designed to protect citizens from unauthorized criminal prosecution. Where the legislature prescribes a specific mode for initiating prosecution, investigating agencies and courts are bound to adhere to that procedure strictly.

The decision also reinforces the principle that courts exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC may intervene to quash criminal proceedings where the prosecution is fundamentally without jurisdiction or where continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the judicial process.

By insisting upon strict compliance with the procedural mandate governing Section 188 IPC, the Telangana High Court has once again emphasized that criminal law must operate within the framework established by statute. Administrative convenience or investigative practice cannot override mandatory legal requirements enacted by Parliament. The ruling therefore serves as an important precedent on the limits of police powers, the jurisdiction of criminal courts, and the indispensable role of procedural safeguards in ensuring fairness within the criminal justice system.