Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 84 (AP)

Kovvuri Somi v. State Of A. P.

2000-02-09

VAMAN RAO

body2000
VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482 of Cr. PC seeks quashing of the proceedings in MC No. 32 of 1998 on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, tanuku. ( 2 ) IT appears one Ponnada Surya Rao gave a complaint at the Police Station, tanuku stating that he had been goldsmith and gave certain gold ornaments to the petitioners herein who owed them various monies as mentioned in the complaint. He further stated in his complaint that he has been demanding those monies from the petitioners. He further stated that he suspected that they would behave high-handedly and might kill him and he thus made a request to the police for his protection from the petitioners herein. ( 3 ) ON the basis of this complaint, a report is said to have been filed by the inspector of Police, Tanuku before the mandal Executive Magistrate. This report mentions that there were monetary dealings between the de facto complainant and the petitioners herein and that the complaint has been filed fearing security for life at the hands of the petitioners herein who are indebted to him. It also mentions that the de facto complainant has been apprehending danger to his life and he asked them to pay back the money. Thus, the Sub-Inspector mentions in his report that under these circumstances, there is a possibility of breach of peace due to disputes between the complainant and the accused. The Sub-Inspector of Police thus prays the Executive magistrate to take up proceedings under section 110 (e) of the Criminal Procedure code. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioners it is contended that the learned Executive magistrate has not passed any preliminary order under Section 110 of Cr. PC. However, a notice is said to have been issued to the petitioners, a copy of which is made available now, which directs them to appear before the learned Executive magistrate on 19-1-1999 in pursuance of the proceedings taken by him under section 110 (e) of Cr. PC. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the proceedings and the consequent notice issued to the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of section 110 of Cr. PC and are illegal and as such the proceedings may be quashed. ( 6 ) SECTION 110 (e) of Cr. PC. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the proceedings and the consequent notice issued to the petitioners is contrary to the provisions of section 110 of Cr. PC and are illegal and as such the proceedings may be quashed. ( 6 ) SECTION 110 (e) of Cr. PC contemplates that when the Executive magistrate receives information that there is, within his local jurisdiction, a person who habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offence, involving a breach of the peace, such magistrate may in the manner provided under section 111 of Cr. PC require such person to show-cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit. ( 7 ) SECTION 111 of the Cr. PC postulates that when a Magistrate acting under section 110 of Cr. PC deems it necessary to require any person to show-cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be inforce, and the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required. ( 8 ) IN this case, it does not appear whether any order has been passed under Section 111 of Cr. PC as contemplated which is a condition precedent for taking proceedings under Section 110 of cr. PC. ( 9 ) FURTHER, on the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant and the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police before the Executive Magistrate, there does not seem to be any information conveyed to the Executive Magistrate that the petitioners habitually committed or attempt to commit or abet the commission of offence involving breach of peace. In fact, the report filed by the Sub-Inspector does not mention even about a single instance in which acts constituting breach of peace are attributed to the petitioners. In fact, what is complained of is that the de facto complainant somehow entertains an apprehension that if he demands the dues from the petitioners, they might behave with him in high-handed manner and might kill him. In fact, what is complained of is that the de facto complainant somehow entertains an apprehension that if he demands the dues from the petitioners, they might behave with him in high-handed manner and might kill him. The de facto complainant does not even state that he has demanded the money from the petitioners and the petitioners responded in the manner in which he apprehended that they would do so. Thus, taking any view of the matter, there is absolutely no basis for initiating the proceedings under Section 110 of Cr. PC. ( 10 ) FURTHER, it is also seen that the de facto complainant has given the complaint to the police on 15-12-1998. As seen from the notice said to have been received by the petitioners, a copy of which is made available now, the learned Executive magistrate seems to have taken up the proceedings on 31-12-1998 which is the date mentioned under the signature of the executive Magistrate in the notice. ( 11 ) SECTION 116 of the Cr. PC contemplates that the enquiry in respect of proceedings initiated under Section 111 of cr. PC must be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement and if such enquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this chapter shall on the expiry of the said period stand terminated unless for such special reasons to be recorded in writing, the magistrate otherwise directs. ( 12 ) IN this case, even assuming that the proceedings were initiated on 31-12-1998, it is now more than one year that the proceedings are said to be still pending. ( 13 ) THUS, taking any view of the matter, the proceedings in MC No. 32 of 1998 on the file of the Mandal Executive Magistrate, tanuku deserve to be and are hereby quashed.