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,
KL,J
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
KL,J
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
KL,J
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
KL,J
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
. Crl.OP.(MD).Nos.15216 of 2017 & 10113 of 2017, decided on 09.11.2017
KL,J
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
. W.P. No.685 of 2021 decided on 02.02.2021
KL,J
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
