Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Paleti Rama Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 November, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6891 of 2019
ORDER:
In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner/respondent No.41 in B-Party in M.C.No.F/07/2019 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District, seeks to quash the above proceedings against him.
2. This petition is filed under the following circumstances.
(a) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station in Crime No.261/2019 informed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole that within the local limits of Chirala I-Town Police Station, there are two political rivalry groups in Chirala Constituency, one belongs TDP party and another belongs to YSR Congress Party and some political grudges are in existence between them and on 15.08.2019 on the eve of Independence Day, some clashes occurred between both the parties. He further informed that on 17.08.2019 in the afternoon, again some altercation took place between both the parties and in that context both the parties tried to muster their strength in the public view and again on 19.08.2019 at 17:30 hours the respondent Nos.1 to 40 of A-party and the respondent Nos.41 to 80 of B-party gathered and engaged in the wordy quarrel and created the tension in Chirala Town. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station along with his staff tried to regulate the 2 UDPR,J CRL.P.No.6891 of 2019 traffic and to control the untoward incident and found both the political groups were trying to disturb the peace and public tranquillity. Suspecting that, there might be breach of peace which may result in law and order problem, Crime No.261/2019 was registered and informed about the registration of the crime to Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer and requested for bind over of the respondents belonging to both the parties.
(b) In that context, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole upon being satisfied with the information furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station, issued show cause notice under Section 111 of Cr.P.C to the members of both the parties including the petitioner/respondent No.41 requiring them to attend before him on 31.10.2019 and show cause as to why they should not execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for a like sum each for getting peace for a period of one year.
Hence, the instant criminal petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Naga Praveen- Vankayalapati and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent.
4. Denying the allegations in the Crime No.261/2019 as well as in the show cause notice, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a practicing doctor in Chirala Town and he is well known for his treatment in and around Chirala rural and urban 3 UDPR,J CRL.P.No.6891 of 2019 areas. Further, he is a law abiding citizen. In the year 1994, he was elected as a Member of Legislative Assembly of Chirala Constituency on behalf of TDP party and again he was elected in the year 1999 as MLA of Chirala Constituency on behalf of TDP party. Further, he worked for sometime as Minister in the Cabinet of the then Chief Minister late Sri N.T. Rama Rao in the year 1994. Since after 2004, he has been in regular service of the people. He never indulged in any criminal activities.
(c) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very object of the initiation of the proceedings under Sections 107 to 119 of Cr.P.C is to maintain public peace and tranquillity. However, in the instant case without there being any breach of peace or tranquillity the proceedings are initiated against the petitioner who is a law abiding citizen. It is further argued even according to the FIR, the incident of altercation took place on 17.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 in Chirala I-Town Police Station. However, the proceedings were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 16.10.2019 that is after a lapse of two months which is quite unjustified. As per the sum and substance of the provisions under Sections 107 to 119 of Cr.P.C, the proceedings ought to be initiated immediately after breakout of altercation but not long after the incident. Thus, the initiation of the bind over proceedings is a sheer abuse of process of law. 4
UDPR,J CRL.P.No.6891 of 2019
(d) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Section 116(6) of Cr.P.C, the enquiry proceedings under Section 111 of Cr.P.C shall be completed within six (6) months, failing which under law the proceedings shall be deemed to be terminated. He vehemently argued that in the instant case though the proceedings were initiated in the month of October, 2019, so far the proceedings are not completed and no special reasons are assigned by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for continuation of the proceedings. Neither there is any threat of breach of peace and tranquillity prevailing in the Chirala Town. In that view, the continuation of the proceedings is illegal. He thus, prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the proceedings.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor on verification and on information, would admitted that the bind over proceedings are still continued before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and as per his information, no special reasons are assigned for continuation.
6. Section 116 of Cr.P.C speaks about the enquiry in respect of the proceedings initiated under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. The Section 116 of Cr.P.C reads thus.
Sec.116. Inquiry as to truth of information.--(1) When an order under section 111 has been read or explained under section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons-cases.
5
UDPR,J CRL.P.No.6891 of 2019 (3) After the commencement, and before the completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded:
Provided that--
(a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, section 109, or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour;
(b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order under section 111. (4) For the purposes of this section the fact that a person is an habitual offender or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community may be proved by evidence of general repute or otherwise. (5) Where two or more persons have been associated together in the matter under inquiry, they may be dealt within the same or separate inquiries as the Magistrate shall think just. (6) The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs:
Provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding against that person, unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated on the expiry of a period of six months of such detention.
(7) Where any direction is made under sub-section (6) permitting the continuance of proceedings the Sessions Judge may, on an application made to him by the aggrieved party, vacate such direction if he is satisfied that it was not based on any special reason or was perverse.
7. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the Section 116(6) of Cr.P.C, the enquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six (6) months from the date of 6 UDPR,J CRL.P.No.6891 of 2019 commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. Admittedly, the proceedings were commenced in the month of October, 2019 and no special order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate giving reasons for extension of the proceedings has been placed before this Court. It is also not brought before this Court that both the parties are still drawing the logger head and posing threat of breach of peace and tranquillity in the Chirala Town. In view of all these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the proceedings initiated in the M.C.No.F/07/2019 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District shall be terminated.
8. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in M.C.No.F/07/2019 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District are hereby terminated and the bond if any executed by the petitioner shall stand discharged.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 10.11.2020 MS 7 UDPR,J CRL.P.No.6891 of 2019