RAVIKINDI RAMASWAMY Vs. BHAVANASI SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to quash the order of the Taluk Magistrate in M.C. No. 87 of 1982 dated 15/12/1982 issued under S. 111, Cr.P.C. The necessary facts are as follows : The petitioners - two in number - are the residents of Vijayawada and partners of Vikram Publishers. The first respondent herein. Bhavanasi Subrahmanyam, Lecturer and Head of the Department of Commerce, C.S.R. Sarma College, Ongole, Prakasam District, wrote a book entitled "Mercantile Law" in English and Telugu. Its publication was entrusted to the petitioners firm under an agreement. Subsequently, by virtue of an arrangement between G. Satyanarayana and K. Pattabhi Rama Rao, the petitioner and his wife became the sole owners of the book. According to the petitioners, the first respondent took away most of the unstitched book, therefore, they filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the civil proceeding is pending. At that juncture, the first respondent filed a petition before the Taluk Executive Magistrate alleging that the petitioners are openly abusing him threatening to cause damage to his life and property, and that he apprehends breach of public peace at the hands of the respondents. On presentation of such a petition, the Taluk Executive Magistrate. Ongole, issued notice under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. to the two petitioners who are the residents of Vijayawada, to appear. It is this notice that is sought to be quashed in this Crl.M.P.

(2.) I think the Taluk Executive Magistrate has not properly and correctly understood the scope of Sections 111 and 107 of the Cr.P.C. The two petitioners are the residents of Vijayawada and the allegations in the petition filed by the first respondent are that the petitioners are threatening him with evil consequences and they are openly abusing him. It is further alleged that the petitioners are having some local support. The sum and substance of the allegations in the petition filed by the first respondent is that the petitioners herein once came to Ongole and pressed the respondent to give them exclusive rights of the book in question. Section 107(2) Cr.P.C. lays down that the proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction. Except the vague allegations against the petitioners, who are the residents of Vijayawada, there are no grounds on the basis of which it can be said that they can be proceeded against under S. 107, Cr.P.C. If their supporters or agents at Ongole are likely to cause breach of the peace then they should have been served with the notice. No such thing is done. Further, there is no report from the police. The Taluk Executive Magistrate should verify whether there is really an apprehension of such a breach of the peace. Merely on the presentation of a petition with such vague allegations, proceedings cannot be initiated under S. 107 of the Cr.P.C. If the first respondent is really having any apprehension the police should necessarily provide him necessary protection.

(3.) The proceedings are, therefore, quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed.