K NEELAKANTA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THESE are petitions under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Adoni, on a notice under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, issued by him for binding them over to keep the peace as per the provisions of section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. An information was laid by the Inspector of Police, Adoni, that there are longstanding factions in Ingaladhal, Baladur Hebbatam and Maddiligadhalli villages between groups of communities on account of water and other disputes leading to civil litigation and there have been riotings and arson. He had enumerated a number of past incidents giving rise to breach of peace. The Magistrate on being satisfied that there is likelihood of imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity, issued two separate notices under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, to the respondents enumerated therein being members of the opposite factions, to show cause as to why they should not be bound over to keep the peace for a period of one year. It is on these notices that both the parties have chosen to file these petitions to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The incidents enumerated in each of these notices show that there is a faction in the village between two rival groups and there have been incidents resulting in breaches of the peace. A number of such incidents for a period of one year are enumerated. Several instances of arson also have been given. It is evident therefrom that on account of the factious feelings between the rival groups and the incidents arising therefrom there was a tense situation. The action under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, is not punitave but it is intended to prevent a breach of the peace in future. Such apprehension can only be based on the conduct, either present or in the immediate past which had given rise to conflicts between two rival groups. If there has been a conflict and there have been other disturbances and if the cause of friction still continues, the Court will be justified in drawing the inference that there is a likelihood of the breach of peace in future also. Therefore the Magistrate was justified, in issuing the notice under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code. It is a matter for enquiry land if the Court finds that there was no sufficient cause, the respondents could still be discharged. There is no ground lor interference at this stage.
(2.) IT is however, brought to the notice of this Court that there is no ground for even the issue of notice with regard to respondents 24 to 42 in M.C. No. 18 of 1969. The information laid as against them is that on 29th November, 1969, some of the other respondents on the one side and K.Hanumantha Reddy, and 25 others on the other committed affray resulting in serious disturbance of public place in Ingaladahal village and ten persons of both the groups sustained injuries as a result thereof, that during the affray the respondents 24 to 42 were also said to have taken part. IT is now stated that charge-sheet has been filed against other respondents for rioting and respondents 24 to 42 have not been made accused in that case and even the case that was instituted had ended in an acquittal. Besides this the only other information laid against these respondents 24 to 42 is that on the night of 10th December, 1969, when the head constable and constables of police were patrolling in Ingaladahal village, respondents 24 to 42 had gathered at the house of the 1st Respondent and the assembly of so many respondents without reasonable purpose made the head constable question them and they dispersed all of a sudden. From this information it cannot be considered that they were intending to commit any act of rioting. Therefore, there is force in the contention that with regard to these respondents even a prima facie case has not been established against them. They are therefore, discharged. The two petitions by the other respondents will stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed; but accused 24 to 42 discharged.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.