Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 741 (AP)

P. Goutham Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-08-10

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2022
JUDGMENT K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 4/2019 on the file of 2nd respondent- Additional District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, Vijayawada, dated 08.03.2019, under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), whereby, 2nd respondent directed the petitioners and unofficial respondents herein to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds with sureties for the like sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, in order to keep peace for a period of one year. 2. Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing 1st respondent-State. Though notice was served on unofficial respondents, they did not choose to make appearance. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned proceedings in M.C. No. 4/2019 initiated by 2nd respondent-Additional District Magistrate, by passing order dated 08.03.2019, is totally on non-application of mind, and there is no material brought before 2nd respondent as to the alleged breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquility or doing any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. Learned senior counsel further contended that a case in crime No. 639 of 2017 of S.N. Puram police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 420, 447, 468, 471, 506, 509, 193 read with 120B and 34 IPC against 1st petitioner and others and investigation was taken up, and later, 1st petitioner gifted 225 square yards out of the disputed site in favour of 2nd petitioner on 08.11.2017. It is his further submission that in respect of the said crime, the Station House Officer of S.N. Puram police station submitted a report on 09.04.2018 before the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., but no action was initiated till today on the said report, and thereafter, in the year 2019, in respect of the self-same crime with the same set of accusations made in the year 2018, police suo motu submitted a report once again before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, which is taken up as M.C. No. 36/2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which is non est. It is his submission that without there being any reference from anyone that there is every likelihood of breach of peace, 2nd respondent ought not to have initiated the impugned proceedings under Section 111 Cr.P.C. by merely mentioning the aforesaid proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Mandal Executive Magistrate. The learned senior counsel further contended that this Court seized of the matter vide Writ Petition No. 31977 of 2018 which was filed by the petitioners before this Court challenging the notice of demolition followed by order of demolition dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, in which by an order dated 06.09.2018, this Court granted status quo, and when the said Writ Petition is still pending before this Court, initiation of the impugned proceedings under Section 111 Cr.P.C. by 2nd respondent, is not maintainable. The learned counsel further submits that though notices were served on the unofficial respondents, they did not choose to come on record for the reasons best known to them. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the period of the proceedings would be of one year and thereafter the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. would become non est. 5. This Court has perused the record. It is stated in the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by 2nd respondent that petitioners herein and respondents 6 to 9 are members of 'A' group and respondents 3 to 5 herein are members of 'B' group. Petitioners herein are husband and wife. Respondents 4 to 6 herein are sons of respondent No. 3 herein. Respondent No. 7 herein is wife of Respondent No. 6. Respondents 8 and 9 herein are father and younger brother of respondent No. 7 herein. Respondent No. 3 herein is husband of late Ganduri Radhakrishna Murthy. She has three sons viz. respondents 4 to 6 herein. Respondent No. 6 herein married respondent No. 7 and the other sons are unmarried. The site in dispute viz. 325 square yards of land in R.S. No. 126/1 at Lakshminagar, Bhagath Singh Road, Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada, is ancestral property of husband of respondent No. 3 herein, who is residing with respondent No. 4 herein in Hyderabad and respondent No. 6 is looking after it. Husband of respondent No. 3 expired on 03.06.1981 without making any arrangement with regard to the subject site. Husband of respondent No. 3 expired on 03.06.1981 without making any arrangement with regard to the subject site. Petitioners herein and respondents 6 to 9 herein conspired to grab the said site. Pursuant to report dated 18.11.2017 lodged by 3rd respondent herein, a case in crime No. 639 of 2017 of S.N. Puram police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 506, 509, 193 read with 120B and 34 IPC against the petitioner No. 1 and respondents 6 to 9 herein. Pursuant to another report dated 22.06.2018 lodged by her, a case in crime No. 306 of 2018 of aforesaid police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 IPC against respondents 7 to 9 herein. It is further stated that members of both the groups were trying to take into the disputed site into their possession and two political parties are involved on either side, and they may resort to a cognizable crime. They may attack each other and are likely to cause breach of peace and disturbance to public tranquility in that area. It is further stated that they have no respect towards law and it is imminent to run both the groups under security provisions and as such a case in crime No. 45 of 2019 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. of Satyanarayanapuram police station was registered to bind over them so as to prevent further untoward incidents in the vicinity. A reference is also made to the proceedings initiated by the Mandal Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Vijayawada North vide M.C. No. 36/2019, dated 31.01.2019. Hence, 2nd respondent directed them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds with sureties for the like sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, in order to keep peace for a period of one year. 6. Hence, 2nd respondent directed them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds with sureties for the like sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, in order to keep peace for a period of one year. 6. Under Section 107 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate may require a person to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping peace for a period not exceeding one year, as he thinks fit to fix, if such Magistrate is informed that the said person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may occasion breach of peace, or disturb public tranquility and if he is further of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against that person. 7. Under Section 111 Cr.P.C., when a Magistrate, acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110, thinks it necessary to require a person to show cause under such section, he may make a reasoned order, in writing, setting forth the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force. The provisions are designed to enable the Magistrate to take measures with a view to prevent commission of offences involving breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility, and the object thereof is preventive and not penal. As the order affects liberty of the person, who has not been found guilty of an offence, it is essential that the power should be exercised strictly in accordance with law. 8. A perusal of the report submitted by the Station House Officer, S.N. Puram police station, which formed basis for the Mandal Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings in M.C. 36/2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., would go to show that there is a site in dispute bearing D. No. 23-37-8, Bhagatsingh road, S.N. Puram, Old Survey No. 192/1, R.S. No. 126/1, Vijayawada Urban, Municipal Ward No. 44, Assessment No. 5104, Old Assessment No. 17860A/9, New Assessment No. 446071, to an extent of 325 square yards with boundaries-East: Bukkapatnam Tirumala Laxmi Narasimhacharyulu site 39 feet; South: Dasari Pushpavatamma site 75 feet; West: Municipal road 39 feet and North: Municipal Road 75 feet. Respondent No. 7 in B Group (R.3 herein) gave a complaint stating that she owned the above site 325 square yards inherited to her from her husband G. Radhakrishna who expired, and her husband received the said site in the partition of his father Uma Maheswara Rao, who purchased the site from Pulleramsetti Venkateswarlu of Guntur on 12.10.1949 for Rs. 1500/- under registered sale deed. She further stated that without her knowledge, 1st respondent of A group (1st petitioner herein) purchased the said site from her elder son viz. 3rd respondent of A group (6th respondent herein) with fake bequeath (will) created and fabricated by 1st petitioner herein with the assistance of other members of A group. In respect of the said dispute, a case in crime No. 639 of 2017 of S.N. Puram police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 420, 447, 468, 471, 506, 509, 193 read with 120B and 34 IPC against 1stpetitioner and others. Both the parties are claiming ownership over the said property and created law and order problem in the locality. 9. Admittedly, in respect of the said incident, the Station House Officer, S.N. Puram police station submitted information to the Mandal Executive Magistrate on 09.04.2018. But, the Mandal Executive Magistrate has not initiated any action till today basing on the report submitted by police in the year 2018. Thereafter, admittedly, the police suo motu filed a report before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, without there being any reference from any of the member of either group, and pursuant thereto, the Mandal Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 in M.C. No. 36/2019, without there being any explanation as to why the Mandal Executive Magistrate has not initiated any action pursuant to the information submitted by police with the same set of facts in the year 2018, and what weighed Mandal Executive Magistrate to initiate the subject proceedings without there being any new set of facts, is not known. 10. It is an admitted fact that there is a litigation pending between the members of both the groups in respect of the subject property. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 31977 of 2018 before this Court in respect of the constructions in subject property against the municipal authorities and this Court, vide order dated 06.09.2018, ordered status quo and the said Writ Petition is pending adjudication before this Court. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 31977 of 2018 before this Court in respect of the constructions in subject property against the municipal authorities and this Court, vide order dated 06.09.2018, ordered status quo and the said Writ Petition is pending adjudication before this Court. Admittedly, this Court seized of the matter. 11. The proceedings have been initiated only basing on the a case in crime No. 639 of 2017 of S.N. Puram police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 420, 447, 468, 471, 506, 509, 193 read with 120B and 34 IPC against the petitioner No. 1 herein and others. Though the case has been registered in the year 2017, there is no reason assigned as to what weighed 2nd respondent-Additional District Magistrate to pass the order under Section 111 Cr.P.C., on 08.03.2019 i.e. after lapse of nearly two years, allegedly acting under Section 107 Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no fresh material that was brought on record to show any occurrence that had taken place to affect breach of peace in between both the parties. There is absolutely no such material placed on record. Admittedly, the said proceedings would be in force only for a period of one year. It is evident from the record that the proceedings initiated by the Mandal Executive Magistrate in M.C. No. 36/2019 is non est in view of the fact that this Court seized of the matter by virtue of the interim order dated 06.09.2018 granting status quo in Writ Petition No. 31977 of 2018 filed by the petitioners, which is pending adjudication before this Court. Therefore, the proceedings, culminating into the impugned proceedings, is completely irregular. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court feels that continuation of the impugned proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., leading to passing of the impugned order under Section 111 Cr.P.C., is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in M.C. No. 4/2019, dated 08.03.2019 initiated by 2nd respondent under Section 107 Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.