Telangana High Court
Vancha Anji Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 3 February, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1035 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings dated 24.08.2021 obtaining bond from the petitioner in Form No.12 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Lingal Ghanpur, Jangoan District, wherein the petitioner bound himself not to commit a breach of peace or do any act, during 12 months term or until the completion of the inquiry and in case of default, forfeit to Government the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-..
2. Heard Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Mr.Rutwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.3-14 guntas in Sy.No.458/C situated at Bandlagudem village of Lingala Ghanpur Revenue Village and Mandal, having acquired the share of land through his grandfather late Vancha Malla Reddy who along with Musuku Narsi Reddy, Amudala Ram Reddy, Musuku Ram Reddy, Musuku Kasni Reddy and Pentaiah , is the joint pattadar of the total land of Ac.43-25 guntas in Sy.Nos.454, 455, 456, 458, 566, 569, 571, 589, 590 and 591 situated at Bandlagudem village, Lingala KL,J 2 Crl.P. No.1035 of 2022 Ghanpur Revenue Village and Mandal. Subsequently one Musuku Malla Reddy, has filed a suit O.S.No.78 of 2013 before the Senior Civil Judge, at Jangaon for partition and separate possession against legal heirs of other joint pattadars including father of the petitioner claiming 1/6th share each of them.
4. During pendency of the suit, father of the petitioner died and his legal heirs including the petitioner were brought on record as defendant Nos.19 to 24 and the said suit was decreed. He would further submit that basing on the report dated 21.08.2021 lodged by one Musuku Malla Reddy, Ex-Sarpanch of Bandlagudem Gram Panchayat, the plaintiff in the above suit, the Police, Lingala Ghanpur Police Station called the petitioner to Police Station and prepared a false report dated 24.08.2021 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. stating that on 24.08.2020 at the outskirts of Ramachandragudem village, the petitioner hatched a plan to commit cognizable offences to create panic situation in the village and disobedience of the order dated 12.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.78 of 2013 and in this regard one earlier petition is pending and produced the petitioner before the II Class Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar) at Lingala Ghanpur with a request to bond over the petitioner to keep good behavior for a period of one year.
5. Basing on the said report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Lingala Ghanpur Police Station, the Mandal Executive Magistrate at Lingala Ghanpur mechanically, and without issuing any show cause notice and without giving opportunity to submit explanation, has KL,J 3 Crl.P. No.1035 of 2022 bound the petitioner in Form No.12, dated 24.08.2021 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. getting executed a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of 12 months, which is illegal. To quash the same, the petitioner has filed the present criminal petition.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no error in issuing the impugned proceedings and, therefore, sought to dismiss the present petition.
7. In view of the above submissions and facts, it is relevant to extract Sections 107, 110 and 111 of Cr.P.C which are as follows:-
Section 107:-. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.
(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, 1 with or without sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
Section 110:- Security for good behavior from habitual offenders. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who-
(a) is by habit a robber, house- breaker, thief, or forger, or,
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII KL,J 4 Crl.P. No.1035 of 2022 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or under section 489A, section 489B, section 489C or section 489D of that Code, or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of-
(i) any offence under one or more of the following. Acts, namely:-
(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940;
(b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973;
(c) the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 ;
(d) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954 );
(e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955 );
(f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955 );
(g) the Customs Act, 1962 or (52 of 1962 );
(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or
(g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, 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.
Section 111:- Order to be made.
When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, 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 in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.
8. The above referred provisions requires issuance of show cause notice as to why the person should not be ordered to execute a bond for breaching peace etc. Section 110 of Cr.P.C. deals with security for good behaviour from habitual offenders and Section 111 KL,J 5 Crl.P. No.1035 of 2022 of Cr.P.C. deals with order to be made, whereas, in the present case such procedure was not followed. In fact, civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and others vide O.S.No.78 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Jangaon with regard to aforesaid property.
9. In Dharmaraj v. State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District1, the Madras High Court relying on its earlier judgment held that whenever police receives any information, it may necessitate action by an Executive Magistrate under Sections - 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C., and that the same shall be entered in a separate register and requisition for action shall be made to Executive Magistrate and by observing so, the Madras High Court quashed the FIR registered for the offence punishable under Section - 107 of Cr.P.C. Even, this Court has also observed the same and also directed the State not to register any crimes under Sections - 107 and 110 and also other provisions in Reddygari Srinivas Reddy v. the State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad2. Thus, the action of the Mandal Executive Magistrate in obtaining bond in Form No.12 dated 24.08.2021 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. from the petitioner herein is not only arbitrary but also illegal and contrary to the procedure laid down under Section 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C. and the same is liable to be quashed.
1 . Crl.OP.(MD).Nos.15216 of 2017 & 10113 of 2017, decided on 09.11.2017 2 . W.P. No.685 of 2021 decided on 02.02.2021 KL,J 6 Crl.P. No.1035 of 2022
10. The present Criminal Petition is, accordingly allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 24.08.2021 obtaining bond in Form No.12 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. by the Mandal Executive Magistrate from the petitioner herein are quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent to take necessary steps in accordance with law.
11. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, in the criminal petition stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 03.02.2022 vvr