Proceedings under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. must be based on fresh material or occurrence to affect breach of peace, and cannot be initiated without any such material or occurrence.

JUDGMENT

K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 4/2019 on the file of 2nd respondent- Additional District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, Vijayawada, dated 08.03.2019, under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), whereby, 2nd respondent directed the petitioners and unofficial respondents herein to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds with sureties for the like sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, in order to keep peace for a period of one year.

2. Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing 1st respondent-State. Though notice was served on unofficial respondents, they did not choose to make appearance.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned proceedings in M.C. No. 4/2019 initiated by 2nd respondent-Additional District Magistrate, by passing order dated 08.03.2019, is totally on non-application of mind, and there is no material brought before 2nd respondent as to the alleged breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquility or doing any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility.

Learned senior counsel further contended that a case in crime No. 639 of 2017 of S.N. Puram police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 352, 420, 447, 468, 471, 506, 509, 193 read with 120B and 34 IPC against 1st petitioner and others and investigation was taken up, and later, 1st petitioner gifted 225 square yards out of the disputed site in favour of 2nd petitioner on 08.11.2017. It is his further submission that in respect of the said crime, the Station House Officer of S.N. Puram police station submitted a report on 09.04.2018 before the Tahsildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate for initiation of proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., but no action was initiated till today on the said report, and thereafter, in the year 2019, in respect of the self-same crime with the same set of accusations made in the year 2018, police suo motu submitted a report once again before the Mandal Executive Magistrate, which is taken up as M.C. No. 36/2019 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., which is non est. It is his submission that without there being any reference from anyone that there is every likelihood of breach of peace, 2nd respondent ought not to have initiated the impugned proceedings under Section 111 Cr.P.C. by merely mentioning the aforesaid proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Mandal Executive Magistrate.

The learned senior counsel further contended that this Court seized of the matter vide Writ Petition No. 31977 of 2018 which was filed by the petitioners before this Court challenging the notice of demolition followed by order of demolition dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, in which by an order dated 06.09.2018, this Court granted status quo, and when the said Writ Petition is still pending before this Court, initiation of the impugned proceedings under Section 111 Cr.P.C. by 2nd respondent, is not maintainable.

The learned counsel further submits that though notices were served on the unofficial respondents, they did not choose to come on record for the reasons best known to them.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the period of the proceedings would be of one year and thereafter the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. would become non est.

5. This Court has perused the record. It is stated in the order dated 08.03.2019 passed by 2nd respondent that petitioners herein and respondents 6 to 9 are members of 'A' group and respondents 3 to 5 herein are members of 'B' group. Petitioners herein are husband and wife. Respondents 4 to 6 herein are sons of respondent No.