GUNTUPALLI PRAKASA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein have filed this petition u/s. 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in R.C. No. 12/9.3 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bandar, Krishna District.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate u/s. 111, Cr. P.C. is mechanical and that the learned Executive Magistrate did not apply his mind. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the provisions of Sec. 111, Cr. P.C. The learned Executive Magistrate, when taking action u/s. 107, 108, 109 and 110 of Cr. P.C., is required to give the substance of the information received by him before the show-cause notice was issued u/s. 111, Cr. P.C. My attention was also invited by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no substance of information is incorporated in the order of the Executive Magistrate and the petitioners herein are called upon to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 1,000/- each with two separate sureties for a like sum to keep peace for a period of six months in the village. This order was passed on 2.11.1993. The six-months period is already over. Under these circumstances I hold the cause of action does not survive. However, the Executive Magistrate is directed, in future if at all he wants to take action against any person under Sections 107, 108, 109 and 110: Cr. P.C., he should incorporate the substance of the information received by him in the show-cause. Notice, failing which the show cause notice becomes illegal and the proceedings are likely to be quashed.

(3.) In the present case, as stated above, the cause of action does not survive and this petition is allowed and the proceedings in R.C. No. 12 of 1993 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bandar, Krishna District stand quashed. Petition allowed.