Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC

"The first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet are without jurisdiction." Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed criminal proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No. 2, Anumula Revanth Reddy, arising from an alleged violation of election norms during a 2019 roadshow.

A single-judge bench of Justice K. Sujana observed that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the IPC based on a police report, as Section 195 of the CrPC mandates a written complaint by the concerned public servant.

The case originated from Crime No. 288 of 2019 at Huzurnagar Police Station, registered during the Huzurnagar bye-elections. It was alleged that on October 19, 2019, the petitioner and other Congress leaders conducted a massive roadshow with 10,000 supporters and 500 vehicles, exceeding permitted time limits and causing public obstruction. Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Sections 341 and 188 read with 34 of the IPC.

The primary question before the court was whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the IPC based on a police report in light of the statutory bar under Section 195(1)(a) of the CrPC. The court was also called upon to determine if proceedings for other offences arising from the same transaction could be sustained if the primary charge was procedurally vitiated.

Statutory Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Regarding Section 188 IPC

The Court began by analyzing the interplay between Section 188 of the IPC and Section 195 of the CrPC. It noted that Section 188 deals with disobedience to orders duly promulgated by a public servant. However, Section 195(1)(a) of the CrPC explicitly prohibits any Court from taking cognizance of such an offence except on the "complaint in writing of the public servant concerned."

The bench emphasized that the definition of a "complaint" under Section 2(d) of the CrPC specifically excludes a police report. Therefore, a Magistrate is only empowered to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC if the officer who issued the order, or their superior, files a formal written complaint directly with the Court.

"To take cognizance there should be a written complaint and such complaint should be filed either by the officer issuing such promulgation order or the officer above his rank."

Police Report Cannot Substitute Formal Written Complaint

The Court observed that in the present case, the proceedings were initiated through a First Information Report (FIR) and subsequent charge sheet filed by the police. Justice Sujana pointed out that the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of the CrPC, which follows the filing of a private complaint, was bypassed entirely.

Since the mandatory procedure of filing a written complaint by a public servant was not followed, the Court held that the entire foundation of the prosecution was flawed. The bench noted that the FIR, the subsequent investigation, and the order taking cognizance were effectively without jurisdiction.

Inability To Split Offences Arising From The Same Transaction

A crucial aspect of the judgment was the Court’s refusal to allow the prosecution to continue for the remaining charge under Section 341 of the IPC (wrongful restraint). The prosecution had argued that even if the charge under Section 188 IPC failed, the petitioner should face trial for obstructing public traffic.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Karnataka v. Hermareddy (1981), the High Court held that when multiple offences are committed in the course of the same transaction, they cannot be split up to uphold a prosecution for those offences not mentioned in the restrictive clauses of the CrPC if the main offence is barred.

"If the offences formed part of the same transaction... it is not possible to split up and hold the prosecution of accused for the other offences."

Continuation of Proceedings Termed Abuse of Process

The Court concluded that since the charges under Section 188 and Section 341 of the IPC were inextricably linked to the same event—the election roadshow—the procedural defect regarding Section 195 CrPC vitiated the entire case. The bench held that allowing the trial to proceed would serve no legal purpose and would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

Justice Sujana observed that even if the allegations in the charge sheet were taken at face value, the essential ingredients for the offences were not legally met due to the procedural lapse. Consequently, the High Court exercised its inherent powers to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 405 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, were quashed. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards in the CrPC regarding offences against public authority are mandatory and cannot be bypassed through regular police reports.

Date of Decision: 24 June 2026