- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Yedla Mohan Reddy v. State Of A.P.
Factual and Procedural Background
A criminal petition was filed to quash proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, dated 08-06-2006, relating to CR No. 35/2006 registered at Ramannapet Police Station. The case arose from incidents involving two rival groups from Yellanki village—37 members of the 'A' party affiliated with Congress (L) and 38 members of the 'B' party affiliated with CPI (M). These groups had longstanding grudges, resulting in complaints, dharnas before the collectorate, and incidents on 29-04-2006 and 06-06-2006. Following an inquiry on 06-06-2006, the Sub-Inspector concluded that both groups were creating disturbances and initiated action under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prevent breach of peace. Consequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called upon members of both parties to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds for keeping peace for one year or until completion of inquiry, with a penalty of Rs. 5,000 each for default. The parties were directed to appear on 15-06-2006. The petitioners, belonging to the 'B' party, contended that the proceedings could not be kept pending indefinitely and were liable to be quashed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of the CrPC can be kept pending indefinitely without completion of inquiry under Section 116.
- Whether the maximum period for which bonds for keeping peace can be obtained is limited to one year under the CrPC.
- Whether the failure to complete inquiry within six months under Section 116(6) mandates termination of proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely and must be quashed as the maximum period for bonds is one year.
- Reliance on Section 116(6) read with Sections 107 and 111 of the CrPC to argue for termination of proceedings.
- Claimed poverty and hardship, emphasizing that the bonds should not extend beyond statutory limits.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Public Prosecutor did not deny the petitioners' claim that no progress had been made after issuance of notices under Section 111 directing appearance on 15-06-2006.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the statutory provisions under Sections 107, 111, and 116 of the CrPC. Section 116 mandates that if no order under Section 111 is made, the executive magistrate must inquire into the truth of the information prompting action under Section 107. Specifically, Section 116(6)(b) requires the inquiry to be completed within six months, failing which the proceedings must be terminated unless special reasons are recorded in writing. In this case, no such special reasons were alleged or recorded, and no progress was made after the notices issued for the hearing on 15-06-2006. The court noted that the maximum duration for security bonds under Section 107 is one year. Since the underlying incidents occurred nearly two years prior, and no evidence showed continuing disturbance or apprehension, the continuation of proceedings was unjustified. Accordingly, the court concluded that the proceedings had terminated by statutory operation and must be quashed.
Holding and Implications
The court quashed the proceedings vide no. C/1158/06 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, dated 08-06-2006 in CR No. 35/2006 of Ramannapet Police Station, and allowed the criminal petition accordingly.
This decision directly terminates the pending proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of statutory time limits and lack of progress, without setting any new legal precedent.
(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.
Alert