(1) The criminal petition has been filed to quash the proceedings vide no. C/1158/06 of the sub - divisional magistrate/revenue divisional officer, bhongir, dated 08 - 6 - 2006 in cr. No. 35/2006 of ramannapet police station.
(2) The material on record shows that cr. No. 35/2006 was registered by ramannapet police on 06 - 6 - 2006 on the information recorded by sub - inspector of police himself alleging that 37 members of 'a' party and 38 members of 'b' party belonging to yellanki village belonged to congress - l and cpi (m) parties respectively. They have grudges and quarrels leading to representations to the collector and other officials and organization of dharnas before the collectorate. Complaints were lodged by the opposing grounds on 29 - 4 - 2006, 26 - 4 - 2006, 05 - 5 - 2006 and 04 - 6 - 2006 and there were incidents on 29 - 4 - 2006 and 06 - 6 - 2006. After the sub - inspector visited the village on 06 - 6 - 2006, he came to a conclusion on inquiry about both the groups creating problems to commit offences against human body and he initiated action under section 107 of the code of criminal procedure so as to prevent breach of peace and disturbance to public tranquility. On such information, the sub - divisional magistrate, bhongircalled upon the members of both parties to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds for keeping peace for a period of one year or until the completion of the inquiry in the matter and bind themselves not to commit breach of peace and to forfeit rs. 5,000/ - each to the government in case of default. The members of both parties are directed to appear before sub - divisional magistrate, bhongiron 15 - 6 - 2006 at 10. 30 a. M.
(3) The petitioners herein belong to 'b' party and claimed the opposite party to be responsible for the events and further claimed to be very poor, eking out their livelihood with great difficulty. The contended that the maximum period for which the bonds could have been obtained from them is only for one year and the proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely and are hence liable to be quashed.
(4) Sri p. S. P. Suresh kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to section 116 (6) read with sections 107 and 111 of the code of criminal procedure and contended that the proceedings are liable to be terminated.
(5) Sri a. Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the public prosecutor could not deny the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after issuance of the notices to both parties under section 111 directing them to appear on 15 - 6 - 2006, nothing has happened before the sub - divisional magistrate, bhongir.
(6) Section 116 of the code of criminal procedure mandates the magistrate (executive magistrate) to proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, if no order under section 111 has been made. A reading of section 116 of the code of criminal procedure shows that if the executive magistrate acts under section 107 of the code of criminal procedure, for the purpose of seeking security for keeping peace, requiring any person to show cause against the execution of a bond for a term with sureties, the inquiry under section 116 should also follow. Subsection (b) of section 116 statutorily mandates completion of the inquiry within six months and termination of the proceedings if the inquiry is not so completed but for any special reasons to be recorded in writing for any other direction by the magistrate.
(7) It is not alleged in the present case that the sub - divisional magistrate had given any direction other wise for continuation of proceedings after expiry of six months for any reasons recorded in writing, leave alone any special reasons. It is also not alleged or shown that any further progress has been made after issuance of the notices to both parties on 15 - 6 - 2006 for the purpose stated under section 111 of the code of criminal procedure and therefore, the proceedings stood terminated by virtue of statutory operation.
(8) Even otherwise, the maximum period for which the executive magistrate could have sought for security for keeping the peace under section 107of the code of criminal procedure would not have exceeded one year. The obvious object and purpose of the provision is to meet any likelihood of breach of peace and public tranquility as an interventionary of measure. The information leading to the proceedings herein emanated about almost two years back and there is nothing on record to show that the same situation still obtained in the village or the same apprehension still remained for the law enforcing agency to call for any intervention underthe security provisions ofthe code of criminal procedure. Even in that viewthe continuation of the proceedings cannot be justified in any manner. The criminal petition, therefore, has to succeed. Hence the proceedings vide no. C/1158/06 of the sub - divisional magistrate/revenue divisional officer, bhongir, dated 08 - 6 - 2006 in cr. No. 35/2006 of ramannapet police station are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed accordingly.
Comments