DIST MAGISTRATE BIDAZR RAMREDDY Vs. R MADHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ramreddy as the agent of one Sangamma preferred a complaint on 12 -12 -1958 before the District Magistrate, Bidar, against one Manikreddy and three others in respect of offences under Sections 447 and 440 of the I. P. C. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused persons, armed with lathies and axes, trespassed on Sangamma's land situated in Myloor village, Bidar Taluka, at about 10 or 11 p.m. on 14 -9 -1958, that the object of Manikreddy was to take illegal possession of the land in spite of the fact that the Civil Court as well as the Criminal Court had decided that Sangamma was entitled to possession of the land and the Civil Court had restrained Manikreddy from interfering with Sangarmma's possession, that the complainant gave information of the occurrence to the Police Station, Bidar Rural, that though a first information report dated J5 -9 -1958 had been issued the investigation of the case had not been proceeded with as the Polite Circle Inspector was supporting Manikreddy, that petitions sent to the higher authorities had been of no use and that, therefore, the complaint had been lodged. Thereupon the learned District Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and directed the District Superintendent of Police, Bidar, to cause an inquiry to be made as to the truth or falsehood of the complaint, under Section 202(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The District Superintendent of Police submitted his report. It is dated 5 -1 -59. In the view of the learned District Magistrate the District Superintendent of Police appeared to have availed himself of the opportunity of making the report to demonstrate his undisguised contempt towards Courts. He accordingly made a reference to this Court. The above contempt of Court proceedings were initiated on the basis of the above reference.

(2.) THE District Superintendent of Police, Shri R. Madhava Rao, was notified to appear before this Court. He was served with a copy of the order of this Court initialing the proceedings and a copy of the reference made by the District Magistrate, In the counter affidavit filed by him in this Court, he denied that in his report which was submitted in the discharge of his official duties and in pursuance of the order made by the District Magistrate, there was anything which amounted io contempt of Court and that be never intended to commit any such contempt.

(3.) HAVING arrived at this conclusion, the learned District Magistrate, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that, at the time of hearing, Manikreddy through his Counsel represented that he had no intention of committing breach of the peace, that nothing untoward had happened subsequent to the filing of the petition, that action had already been taken by the Ex -Officio Sub -Divisional Magistrate, under Section 107, Cr. P. C. and that the proper course for the petitioner was to move that Magistrate in case of a breach of the peace. He also dismissed as devoid of merit Manikreddy's petition to enable him to remove the sugar cane which had been cut down and to permit him to water the standing sugarcane crop. He administered a warning to Manikreddy not to attempt to break the law and that he should obey and respect the order of the Civil Court and forbear from interfering with Sangamma's possession of the lands pending disposal of the suit. This order was made on 25 -11 -1958. It will be remembered that, according to Sangamma's complaint, Manikreddy and the other accused trespassed upon the lands on 14th September 195S. Thus the alleged act of trespass had taken place prior to Manikreddy's petition for action being taken under Section 144 Cr. P. C. which was filed on 5 -11 -1958. But it was after the order in the latter case that Ramreddy filed his complaint against Manikreddy and three others before the District Magistrate for the alleged trespass, on the ground that the Police, though they had issued a F. I. R. on 15 -9 -58 after receiving information of the offence, had not proceeded with the investigation. The complaint is dated 12 -12 -1958 and the learned District Magistrate's order under Section 202(i) Cr. P. C. directing the District Superintendent of Police to investigate and report on the truth or falsehood of the complaint was made on 23 -12 -58. The Superintendent's report is dated 5 -1 -59. In that report he gave an account of the origin of the dispute between Sangamma and Manikreddy and stated that both the parties in order to assert their respective rights 'began a series of petitions, civil suits and counter petitions'. He proceeded to say that as it was not possible for the police to take action against any party for an offence under Section 447, Indian Penal Code, impartial action under Section 107, Cr. P. C. was taken against both the parties to maintain public tranquillity. According to him, it is at this stage that Ramreddy entered the picture, developed illicit intimacy with Manikreddy's wife and obtained a power -of -attorney from Sangamma who was old and did not have all her wits about her. The report further states that Ramreddy was a habitual instigator of land disputes and was involved in two murder cases and that he had taken possession of lands belonging to another accused involved in one of the murder cases. The report then refers to the technique adopted by Ramreddy in his bringing pressure to bear upon the subordinate police staff by sending petitions to superior officers making all varieties of allegations against the Sub Inspectors and the Circle Inspector of Police and in filing suits in the Civil Court to restrain Manikreddy from entering on the lands. It is stated that the result of this action by Ramareddy was to leave the local police in a helpless position, 'while, on the other hand, the civil Court decreed the basis of records only that Sangamma was actual cultivator and possessor of the lands whereas spot inspection showed that Manikreddy was in actual possession and that he was cultivating the land'. It is added that this state of facts is substantiated by the report dated 20 -9 -1958 of the Deputy Tahsildar, Bidar. It is stated that in these circumstances the only action that the police could take was to maintain peace by recourse to arrest under Section 151, Cr. P. C. and subsequent action under Section 107 Cr. P. C. impartially against both the parties. It next proceeds to say that Ramareddy utilising the usual bias and prejudice against the police to further his own ends filed a petition for action under Section 144 Cr. P. C.,' that the petition was rejected by the District Magistrate and the latter while passing strictures against the Inspector of Police directed Manikreddy to forbear from interfering with Sangamma's possession of the lands in question and characterises this direction as of uncertain legal implications and not legal. It is also stated that the Munsiff's order of 5 -11 -57 while granting the temporary injunction restraining Manikreddy from interfering as prayed for by Sangamma, also directed Manikreddy to maintain the status quo. The latter part of the order, the Superintendent interprets as disabling the police from interfering with Manikreddy's possession. The District Superintendent of Police then proceeds to say that Ramreddy, taking advantage of the two decisions in his favour, i.e., the temporary injunction granted by the Munsiff and its confirmation in appeal by the District Judge, proceeded to Myloor to make an end of Manikreddy, that this information was brought by the police constables who were in the village to the Police Station and that the armed party of Ramreddy was arrested in order to prevent riot and murder. It is further stated that when the matter went before the District Magistrate he characterised the action taken by the Police as influenced by malice and it is added that a copy of the judgment was sent to the Inspector Central of Police. The District Superintendent of Police concludes that in the circumstances narrated by him it is difficult for Ramareddy to sustain his complaint in respect of offences under Sections 447 and 440, I. P. C. and adds that most of the villagers testify to Manikreddy's actual possession. At the end of the report, he suggests to the Magistrate that he may 'decide the issue by a spot inspection and decision in the civil suit pending in the civil Court'.