THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5904 OF 2006 Date:19.11.2009 Between: Palaldugu Venkatramana Naidu and 53 others ……Petitioners And: The State of A.P., rep. By its Public Prosecutor, Madanapalle. ….. Respondent. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5904 OF 2006 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in M.C.No.2 of 2006 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Executive) and Sub Collector, Madanapalle. On the report given by Sub Inspector of Police, Kalakada Police Station, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has issued summonses to 54 persons of ‘A’ party and 27 persons of ‘B’ party under Sections 113/107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring all of them to attend in person in his office and to show-cause why they should not be required to enter into bond for Rs.20,000/- each for keeping peace for a period of one year. The said notice is dated 03.11.2006. The period of one year contemplated in the impugned notice expired by November, 2007. It is stated in the notice that case in Crime No.54 of 2006 was registered against all the persons shown in ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party for the offence punishable under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code and that all of them were arrested and were sent to remand and thereafter released on bail granted by the Court. The said incident happened on 29.08.2006. Therefore, case in Crime No.69 of 2006 was registered against all of them by the same police under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to prevent any further breach of peace in the locality which may result in commission of cognizable offences. Thereupon the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued the impugned summonses to all the parties for appearance. The only point put forward by the petitioners’ counsel in this case is that summonses in question issued to the petitioners 1 to 54 who belong to ‘A’ party are not valid and legal for non compliance of legal requirements. He placed reliance on two reported decisions of this Court in Challa Somaiah and others Vs. State of A.P., (1978 A.L.T 432) and Nimmagadda Ravi and others Vs. State of A.P. (1998 (1) A.L.D (Crl.) 401) wherein it was held that summons issued under Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be preceded by an order under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the said order should be accompanied with the summons. As per Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when a Magistrate acting under Section 107 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under that Section, the Magistrate shall make an order in writing setting forth substance of the information received, amount of bond to be executed etc. Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure describes that if such person is not present in Court, then the Magistrate shall issue summons requiring him to appear. Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes that every summons or warrant issued under Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be accompanied with the order made under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving summons to the person served. Thus, having regard to the above provisions, it is incumbent on the Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass an order under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after receiving relevant information from the Police Officer and the said order should be accompanied with the summons issued under Section 107/113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the impugned summonses in this case is examined in the light of the said provisions of law, it is evident that in the summons a Sub Divisional Magistrate set out information received by him from the Sub Inspector of Police and issue the summons as there is every possibility that the persons shown in ‘A’ party and ‘B’ party may create law and order problems and cause breach of public peace and disturb tranquillity. Though part of the above summons may amount to semblance of compliance of Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but it is not an order as contemplated under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The law set out above requires that any proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there should be summons issued under Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said summons should be accompanied by a separate order under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the Magistrate on the basis of information furnished to him by the police officer. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is legal infirmity in the summonses issued by the Magistrate in this case. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in M.C.No.2 of 2006 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Madanapalli. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J 19th November, 2009 Gk. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5904 OF 2006 Date:19.11.2009 Gk.