Telangana HC Quashes Huzurnagar By-election Roadshow Case Against Revanth Reddy, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC

The High Court held that cognizance of a Section 188 IPC offence taken on a police charge sheet, without a written complaint by the authorised public servant, is jurisdictionally void.

The High Court for the State of Telangana, sitting singly before Justice K. Sujana, on 24 June 2026 quashed all criminal proceedings against Anumula Revanth Reddy arising from a roadshow held during the 2019 Huzurnagar by-elections. The proceedings, registered as C.C.No.396 of 2023 before the Principal Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, were founded on offences under Sections 341 and 188 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found that taking cognizance on a police charge sheet for a Section 188 IPC offence, without a prior written complaint from the competent public servant as mandated by Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rendered the entire proceeding without jurisdiction. The FIR, charge sheet, and the order of cognizance were held to be vitiated on this ground.

The Roadshow Allegation and the Criminal Case

Crime No.184 of 2019 was registered at Police Station Palakeedu following an incident on 18 October 2019. The allegation was that Revanth Reddy, then a leader of the Indian National Congress, along with others conducted a roadshow at Janapahad village between approximately 2:07 PM and 2:50 PM during the Huzurnagar by-election campaign period.

According to the prosecution, the roadshow blocked a road for roughly 43 minutes, obstructing the free flow of traffic. It was further alleged that several vehicles took part in the procession without obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the trial court took cognizance, numbering the case as C.C.No.396 of 2023.

Revanth Reddy was arrayed as accused No.2 in those proceedings. He approached the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction seeking to quash the entire case.

The Legal Question: Who Can Initiate a Section 188 IPC Prosecution?

The central argument advanced by counsel Sri R. Giri Kumar on behalf of the petitioner was two-fold. First, that even accepting the charge sheet at face value, the essential ingredients of Sections 341 and 188 IPC were not established—there was no material to show that Revanth Reddy voluntarily caused obstruction preventing any person from proceeding in a lawful direction. Second, and more fundamentally, that Section 195(1)(a) CrPC erects a bar to cognizance.

Section 195(1)(a) CrPC provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom the former is administratively subordinate. Section 188 IPC, which deals with disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant, falls squarely within this range.

The argument was that the police cannot file an FIR and a charge sheet for a Section 188 IPC offence and have a Magistrate take cognizance on that basis. The cognizance route for such an offence must originate in a written complaint by the authorised public servant, not in a police report. Since no such complaint was filed, the entire structure of the prosecution was said to be jurisdictionally infirm.

The Public Prosecutor, Palle Nageshwar Rao, resisted the petition. He contended that the material on record prima facie disclosed the alleged offences: vehicles participated without authorisation, a large crowd gathered, and traffic was disrupted for a considerable period. The prosecution's position was that these factual questions required appreciation of evidence at trial and that the High Court should not undertake a detailed examination of facts at the stage of quashing.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice K. Sujana set out the text of Section 188 IPC and Section 195(1)(a) CrPC in full and then examined the procedural pathway that the law requires for this class of offence.

The court noted that Section 2(d) CrPC defines a “complaint” as allegations made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action. For a Section 188 IPC offence, it is only upon receipt of such a complaint from the authorised public servant that a Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, whereafter the procedure under Section 200 CrPC follows. A first information report filed by the police, and a charge sheet based on police investigation, do not satisfy this requirement and cannot substitute for the statutory written complaint.

The court then considered the effect of this defect on the Section 341 IPC charge that appeared alongside Section 188 IPC in the same charge sheet. For this, it relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Karnataka v. Hermareddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417. In paragraph 8 of that decision, the Supreme Court held that where, in the course of the same transaction, an offence requiring a court complaint under Section 196(1)(b) CrPC and an offence not requiring such a complaint are both committed, it is not possible to split up the prosecution and uphold the case only for the offences outside that bar.

Justice Sujana applied that principle directly. Since Section 188 IPC formed part of the same transaction as Section 341 IPC, and since cognizance of Section 188 IPC was fatally flawed for want of a written complaint by the authorised public servant, the prosecution could not be severed and continued only on the Section 341 charge. The entire cognizance stood vitiated.

The court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings in these circumstances amounted to abuse of process of law.

Outcome

Criminal Petition No.5020 of 2026 was allowed. The proceedings against Anumula Revanth Reddy in C.C.No.396 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases, Hyderabad, were quashed in their entirety. Any miscellaneous applications pending in those proceedings were also directed to stand closed.