Point of Law: Executive Magistrate cannot pass any order, once there is anything to say that prima facie, any person in possession and once there is a civil matter pending.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the proceedings in Crime No.99 of 2020 pending on the file of Dhanwada Police Station, Narayanapet District for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Code’) as illegal and to set aside the same.

2. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home & Law. Perused the record.

3. Respondent No.3 - Station House Officer, Dhanwada Police Station, Narayanapet District, has registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2020 for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code against the petitioners herein. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the petitioners herein are having disputes with their relative, Mr. Nagi Reddy S/o Basireddy, in respect of agricultural land situated at Gotur, shivar of Dhanwada. In the said connection, respondent No.3 has received six petitions, out of which, he has registered two crimes on two petitions, one was refused as petty case and other three petitions were closed stating that they are ‘civil in nature’. Instead of solving civil disputes, the petitioners are creating nuisance and causing inconvenience to the local regular habitants. Thus, there is law and order problem affecting the public tranquility. It is also mentioned in the FIR that respondent No.3 has apprehended the petitioners on 03.12.2020 and informed about their arrest, produced them before respondent No.6 to bind over them to keep good behaviour for a period of six (06) months and registered a case suo-moto in Crime No.99 of 2020 for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code. It is further mentioned that respondent No.3 has examined all the witnesses in detail and recorded their statements in Part-II CD and, therefore, arrested them. Therefore, it is quite necessary to summon both groups and bind over them to ensure public peace and tranquility in the village. With the said contentions, respondent No.3 has requested respondent No.6 - Tahsildar, Dhanwada Mandal, to issue summons to the petitioners, bind over them and initiate action under Section - 110 (e) of the Code by obtaining interim bonds for keeping good behaviour and maintaining peace and tranquility.

4. Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the police have no power to register a case for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code. There is procedure prescribed to pass orders as per Section - 110 (e) of the Code. The police have not followed the said procedure in the present case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners herein are absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey No.386/A; Acs.2-00 guntas in Survey No.435/A; Acs.1-14 guntas in Survey No.436/A; Acs.1-13 guntas in Survey No.436/A; Acs.1-13 guntas in Survey No.436/E, Acs.2-27 guntas in Survey No.390/A; Acs.5-23 guntas in Survey Nos.435/A; Acs.14-15 guntas in Survey No.447, situated at Goturu Village of Dhanwada Mandal, Narayanapet District. They have purchased the said land under different sale deeds. They are cultivating the said land by raising jowar and paddy crops etc. The learned counsel would further submit that when Mrs. Krishnaveni, wife of Nagi Reddy, and others interfered with the possession of the petitioners over the said land, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and another filed a suit vide O.S. No.3 of 2020 for perpetual injunction and the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanapet, has passed order of status quo on 30.06.2020 in I.A. No.31 of 2020 in O.S.No.3 of 2020 on merits.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that respondent No.5 - Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter dated 29.07.2020 to respondent No.6 informing that the Circle Inspector, Marikal vide letter dated 20.07.2020 informed about the complaints received from Reddy Gouni Ravinder Reddy and others and about the d