Telangana High Court
Nampelli Suman vs The State Of Telangana on 1 February, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.922 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the Notice No.C/1146/2021, dated 28.10.2021 issued by respondent No.2, whereby directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of said notice, as per the personal bond furnished by him in Crime No.314/2021, otherwise, action would be initiated against him.
2. Heard Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Police of Huzurabad Police Station have implicated the petitioner in Crime No.314 of 2021 registered for the offences under Sections - 452, 323, 506 read with 34 of IPC on the complaint lodged by one Nampalli Jagapathi, dated 11.10.2021. It was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner along with two others entered into his house with a knife, caused injury and threatened him with dire consequences.
2
4. Learned counsel would further submit that on the complaint of Nakka Kishore, Asst. Executive Engineer, in charge of Flying Squad Team in Huzurabad Assembly elections, the Police, Huzurabad Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.320 of 2021 against the petitioner herein for the offences under Sections - 171-B, 171-E and 188 IPC alleging that while conducting checking, the petitioner along with another person was found with Rs.1.00,000/- in their possession and they seized the same and also filed charge sheet against the petitioner which is pending.
5. Basing on the requisition of the Station House officer, Huzurabad Police Station, vide letter No.158/Cr.E1/2021, dated 27.10.2021, the 2nd respondent herein, vide notice No.C/1146/2021, dated 28.10.2021 directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within seven days from the date of receipt of notice as per personal bond furnished by him in Cr.No.314 of 2021, otherwise, criminal action will be initiated against the petitioner as per the period covered under the bond as per law, which is illegal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence, much less the offences alleged in the present case. The impugned notice is 3 issued under the influence of ruling political party leaders to take vengeance and to meet their political mileages without having jurisdiction by misusing the powers. The petitioner has not even violated the law and order and breach of peace and surety bond as alleged in the impugned notice. Further, respondent No.2 without giving any opportunity to submit explanation, issued the impugned notice, which is illegal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Dadi Vesudev Reddy v. State of Telangana1 and also the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Dinesh Kumar Tailor v. State of Rajasthan2. In view of the same, he sought to quash the impugned notice.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no error in issuing the impugned notice and, therefore, sought to dismiss the present petition.
8. 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 1 2019 (2) HLT 204 2 1998 (2) RLW (Raj) 1113 4 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 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;5
(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.
9. 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 6 of Cr.P.C. deals with order to be made, whereas, in the present case such procedure was not followed.
10. In Dharmaraj v. State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District3 , 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 of Cr.P.C. and also other provisions of Cr.P.C., in Reddygari Srinivas Reddy v. the State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad4.
11. In the present case also, the Police have registered the above Crime No.320 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 171-B, 171-E and 188 IPC against the petitioner without following the 3 Crl.OP.(MD).Nos.15216 of 2017 & 10113 of 2017, decided on 09.11.2017 4 W.P. No.685 of 2021 decided on 02.02.2021 7 procedure laid down under Section - 107 to 111 of Cr.P.C. Hence, following the principle laid down by the Madras High Court as well as this Court in the above said judgments and also the procedure laid down under Sections - 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C., the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned notice No.C/1146/2021, dated 28.10.2021 is not only arbitrary, but also illegal.
12. The present Criminal Petition is, accordingly allowed and the impugned notice No.C/1146/2021, dated 28.10.2021 issued by respondent No.2 against the petitioner herein are hereby quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to take necessary steps in accordance with law.
13. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, in the criminal petition stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:01.02.2022 vvr