PRAVEEN MOHAN BHAI THOGADIA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.251 of 2011 pending on the file of learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, where the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sec. 153-A Penal Code and Sec. 125 of Representation of Peoples Act.

(2.) It is based on the report of the Inspector of Police, Special Branch, the crime No.318 of 2004 dated 13.04.2004 was registered and the police after investigation filed the final report for the offences supra and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. In the police final report, 8 witnesses cited all are the police officials, the so called eye witnesses to the so called speech of the accused that is covered by video coverage recorded by one of the police personnel and the others are present there, who registered the crime and who investigated the case and who arrested the accused and ultimately who filed the final report, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by allotting the said CC which is now sought for quashing.

(3.) Mainly so far as the offence under Sec. 125 of Representation of Peoples Act concerned, it must be in relation to an election offence. It is not even born by any of the record right from the FIR to the taking of cognizance from the police final report of there was an election notification issued and the speech particularly was in relation to an offence touching election process. Once such is the case, the application of Sec. 125 of Representation of Peoples Act is not there at all to take cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Thus, the said cognizance order to that extent is unsustainable on its face.