Telangana High Court
Chavidi Rama Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9183 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS')
by the petitioner, seeking to quash the proceedings in impugned
order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Rc.No.C/709/2024 by the
Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Khammam. By the
impugned order, respondent No.2 by imposing Section 164 of the
BNSS prohibited the entry or continue to entry or to carry on
any activity in the disputed land.
2. Heard Sri Alluri Divakar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
respondent No.2 has erroneously passed the impugned order
during the pendency of the civil proceedings in O.S.No.04 of
2024 and O.S.No.304 of 2024. He further submitted that since
investigation in Crime No.203 of 2024 is completed, there are
only two crimes pending i.e., Crime No.64 of 2024 and Crime
No.296 of 2024. He also submitted that without issuing the prior
SKS,J
notice under Section 164 of BNSS, respondent No.2 passed the
impugned order. In this regard, he placed reliance on the
judgment of the Erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Shaik Liyaqat and others
v. State of Telangana and another 1 and prayed the Court to
set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2024.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for respondent-State opposed the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner stating that respondent No.2 has
rightly passed the impugned order as the petitioner and
respondent No.3 are creating nuisance in the village over a land
dispute which creating hurdle in maintaining the law and order.
Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
5. In case of Shaik Liyaqat (Supra), the Erstwhile High
Court of Judicature of Telangana and Andhra pradesh at
paragraph Nos.4 and 5 held as under:
"4. The essential two ingredients of this provison are recording of
satisfaction about the grounds to initiate such proceedings and giving
notice to the parties to appear before the Court either in person or by
pleader.
5. But, in the present proceedings, no satisfaction of the Executive
Magistrate is recorded as required under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C and no
notice was ordered to the petitioners requiring them to appear before him
to put in written statements of their respective claims. The order was
passed by the Executive Magistrate without following the mandatory
procedure prescribed under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C and on this ground
alone the proceedings are liable to be quashed."
2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 452
SKS,J
6. A plain reading of the above would abundantly make it
clear that giving a prior notice to the parties is mandatory before
the passing any order by the Magistrate under Section 145(1) of
Cr.P.C.
7. As seen from the record, respondent No.2 passed the
impugned order without following the mandatory procedure of
issuing the prior notice to the parties. Hence, in view of the facts
and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that
ends of justice would be met if the proceedings in
Rc.No.C/709/5204 are quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings passed in Rc.No.C/709/204 by the Executive
Magistrate and Tahsildar, Khammam, are hereby quashed.
Further, respondent No.2 is at liberty to follow the procedure as
contemplated under the provisions of the Act.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.11.2024
gms
