IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9379 OF 2012 Between:
Ravluri Kasiranga Sudhakara Rao & Ors. … Petitioners/B party V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. … Respondent/complainant Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9379 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings in MC.No. 3 of 2011 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Markapur, Prakasam district.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Brief facts leading to this criminal petition are as follows:
Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station laid information before Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur stating that there are difference between two groups i.e., ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party in respect of civil matter and there were ill-feelings between them and to prevent violence and indecent activities, he requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Markapur, to take appropriate proceedings and on that Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. directing petitioners, who are ‘B’ party members to appear before him in person on 02/05/2011 at 11:00 a.m., and show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute Rs.1,00,000/- [Rs. One lakh only] for keeping peace for a period of six months/one year.
4. According to advocate for petitioners, the petitioners have appeared before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Markapur on02/05/2011 as directed and executed individual bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- [Rs. One lakh only] each and thereafter Sub- Divisional Magistrate without conducting any enquiry as required under section 116 Cr.P.C. adjourning the case and compelling the petitioners to appear.
5. He submitted that even in the year 2013 again a notice was issued to the petitioners to appear before Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 30/01/2013 at Tahsildar Office, Yerrogondapalem and that petitioners have accordingly attended and thereafter there was no progress. He submitted that according to section 116 [6] Cr.P.C. enquiry has to be completed within six months but till now learned Executive Magistrate has not completed enquiry though more than two years have elapsed.
6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after 30/01/2013, there is no further progress and he has no further instructions.
7. As seen from the proceedings of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he issued notice to ‘B’ party as per powers conferred on him under section 107 Cr.P.C. directing them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- [Rs. One lakh only] for keeping peace.
8. According to Advocate for petitioners, the petitioners have executed a bond as ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the show cause notice and they also appeared on the dates fixed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, According to Section 116 Cr.P.C. when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in pursuance of summons issued under section 113 in respect of security proceedings, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information as per sub-clause 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said section. According to sub-section 6 of Section 116 Cr.P.C. the Executive Magistrate shall complete the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of its commencement. So according to section 116 [1] he has to commence enquiry on date on which any person appeared before him in pursuance of summons. Here the petitioners have appeared before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 02/05/2011 in pursuance of show cause notice issued under section 107 Cr.P.C. So on that date the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has to commence enquiry and complete it within six months thereafter. As seeen from section 116 [6] Cr.P.C. on the expiry of six months period, the proceedings shall stand terminated unless special reasons are recorded in writing by the Magistrate. There is no material to show that Sub-Divisional Magistrate has recorded any special reasons for not completing the enquiry within prescribed period.
9. So by operation of section 116 [6] Cr.P.C., the proceedings before Sub-Divisional Magistrate would automatically stand terminated after expiry of six months period. But admittedly, the proceedings are still pending and no final orders are passed.
10. Considering these aspects, I am of the view that this is a fit case to quash proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Markapur, as the learned Magistrate has not completed enquiry within the statutory period of six months.
11. For the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in MC.No. 3 of 2011 are hereby quashed.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
12/08/2014
I s L.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9379 OF 2012 Circulation No. Date: 14/08/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43