APHC010422082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6842/2024 Between: Sathi Adilakshmi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. B V KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following Order: Heard Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel appeared on behalf of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in C.C.No.108 of 2024 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, for alleged offence 2 under Section 188 of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 188 of IPC reads as follows: “Section 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; And if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” 4. It is submitted that there is a statutory bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., for the Court to take cognizance for offences punishable under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. The public servant of the lawful authority, who has issued an order which is very promulgated by the public servant, as to file a complaint before the Magistrate and only upon the complaint of the public servant, the Magistrate would be competent to take cognizance of such offence. In the present case, the Station House Officer has registered a Crime No.119 of 2024 on 18.04.2024 for alleged offences under Sections 188 of IPC and Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the listed witnesses also do not speak about the First Hand Information about the alleged offences and the statements also indicate that they are all clearly hearsay offences. It is also submitted that there is a delay of eight (8) days in registering the complaint. Even as per the complaint, the alleged incident 3 occurred on 10.04.2024. However, the complaint was lodged on 18.04.2024. There is an unexplained delay of eight days in registering the complaint. 6. It is also submitted that Section 7 of Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 would deal with the Manager or any person connected with religious institutions for having committed under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be punishable under Section 7. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither the manager nor any person connected with religious institutions. As such Section 7 would not be applicable to the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance of the Judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.7381 of 2024 whereby this Court had an occasion to deal with the identical case where the police registered a case under Section 188 and the complaint was taken cognizance by the Magistrate on the complaint of the police officer and the learned Magistrate of this Court had considered the legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab1 and the learned Magistrate has quashed the FIR and allowed the criminal petition. 8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there is a legal bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., in taking cognizance of the compliant. However, Section 7 would be applicable to the petitioner and reads as follows: “7. Penalties. Where any religious institution or manager thereof contravenes the provisions of section 3, section 4, section 5 or section 6, the manager and every person connected with such contravention shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.” 1 1962 AIR 1206 4 9. It is submitted that every person mentioned in Section 7 would include the petitioner, as the petitioner has resorted to promotion or propagating in political activity by misusing the place of warship. 10. On the facts of this case are similar to the facts dealt with by the learned Single Judge and the complaint was lodged by the Station House Officer and the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the Station House Officer, Anaparthi police Station. The procedure adopted by the Station House Officer in registering the complaint and investigating and submitting the charge sheet before the Magistrate is erroneous and not in accordance with law under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate also committed an error in taking cognizance of the charge sheet and taken into file as C.C.No.108 of 2024. When there is a statutory bar on the Magistrate in taking cognizance of offences over which a complaint is not filed by the competent authority i.e., the public servant who has promulgated the order, there could have been no occasion to take cognizance of the charge sheet filed by the Station House Officer, Anaparthi Police Station. Section 7 also has to be read as the person connected with the religious institution. Section 7 of religious institution also would not be applicable to the facts of this case. 11. Considering the same, the C.C.No.108 of 2024 on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 5 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 07.04.2025 BMS