Telangana High Court
Bassi Balaram vs The State Of Telangana, on 19 August, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.22553 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notices to the petitioners vide D/474/2024, dated 20.06.2024 and 23.07.2024 without following due process of law as illegal and to set aside the same.
2. Heard Mr. K. Ajith Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.3 - Police have no power to register a case for the offences punishable under Sections - 41A and 107 of Cr.P.C. There is procedure prescribed to be followed for passing order under Section - 107 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the police have not followed the procedure laid down under Section - 107 of Cr.P.C. He would also submit that prior to registration of crime, 2 KL,J W.P. No.22553 of 2024 respondent No.3 produced the petitioners before respondent No.2 - the Special Executive Magistrate, who in turn forced them to execute personal bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- without sureties to ensure the keeping of peace for a period of six months.
i) He would submit that the petitioners were implicated in the aforesaid crime and they never encroached into any forest land as alleged in the FIR and remand case diary. In fact, the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of their respective lands on the strength of latest pattadar passbooks issued by the Government of Telangana. Therefore, the question of petitioners entering into the forest land does not arise. The petitioners have also submitted their explanation to the said notices, but respondent No.2 did not consider the same.
ii) He would also submit that the said impugned notices are cryptic and do not contain the details/reasons. Respondent No.2 did not issue any prior show cause notice under Section - 108 Cr.P.C. before passing orders under Section - 111 of Cr.P.C. or the impugned orders. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in 3 KL,J W.P. No.22553 of 2024 issuing the impugned orders/notices dated 20.06.2024 and 23.07.2024 is liable to be declared as illegal.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue the petitioners are creating law and order problem in the village and, therefore, respondent No.2 had issued the notices to maintain good behavior for a period of six (06) months. Even after binding them over, the petitioners did not maintain peace and on the other hand, they tried to encroach into the forest land and to attack on the Forest Officials. Therefore, on the complaint lodged by the Forest Range Officer, respondent No.3 registered the aforesaid crime. Pursuant to the said crime, respondent No.2 had issued notices to the petitioners forfeiting the bonds furnished by them and requiring them to pay the aforesaid amount or else to show cause as to why they should not pay such amount. The explanation submitted by the petitioners is not convincing.
5. Perusal of record would reveal that initially, respondent No.3 produced the petitioners before respondent No.2 on 03.06.2024 along with requisition seeking to obtain bonds for their good behaviour under Section - 107 of the Code of Criminal 4 KL,J W.P. No.22553 of 2024 Procedure, 1973 to the effect that they should not enter into the forest land with a malicious intention to encroach the same illegally. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 after enquiry bound over the petitioners to maintain good behavior for a period of six (06) months, in default thereof, they shall have to forfeit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each to the Government.
6. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 - Station House Officer, Mugpal Police Station, Nizamabad District registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2024 against the petitioners herein and others for the offences under Sections - 143, 148, 307, 332, 382, 447, 427, 186, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2), (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (for short 'Act, 2015') pursuant to the report given by the Forest Range Officer of Nizamabad South. In the said FIR, it is mentioned by the complainant that on 14.06.2024 at about 0900 hours, the petitioners and others tried to encroach into the Forest Land situated at Kolpole Village shivar and also tried to attack upon the Forest 5 KL,J W.P. No.22553 of 2024 Officials. After registration of crime, respondent No.3 arrested the petitioners on 15.06.2024 and got them remanded to judicial custody.
7. Pursuant to the said registration of crime against the petitioners, respondent No.2 issued notices vide proceedings No.D/474/2024, dated 20.06.2024 and 23.07.2024 requiring the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards penalty on the ground that they have committed the aforesaid offences and their security bonds stood forfeited or else show-cause within seven (07) days as to why they should not pay such amount. Challenging the said notices, the petitioners filed the present writ petition declaring them as illegal.
8. In Dharmaraj v. State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District1, 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 1 . Crl.OP.(MD).Nos.15216 of 2017 & 10113 of 2017, decided on 09.11.2017 6 KL,J W.P. No.22553 of 2024 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 directed the State not to register any crimes under Sections - 107 and 110 and also other provisions in Reddygari Srinivas Reddy v. the State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad2.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, following the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions and the procedure laid down under Sections - 107 to 110 of Cr.P.C., the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned notices No.D/474/2024, dated 20.06.2024 and 23.07.2024 to the petitioners is not only arbitrary, but also illegal. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.
10. The present Writ Petition is, accordingly allowed and the impugned notices No.D/474/2024, dated 20.06.2024 and 23.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2 under Section - 107 of 2 . W.P. No.685 of 2021 decided on 02.02.2021 7 KL,J W.P. No.22553 of 2024 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein are hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to take necessary steps in accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, in the writ petition stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 19th August, 2024 Mgr/Pvt