LAWS(APH)-2008-3-5

YEDIA MOHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On March 26, 2008
YEDLA MOHAN REDDY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings vide No. C/1158/06 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/revenue divisional Officer, Bhongir, dated 08-6-2006 in cr. No. 35/2006 of Ramannapet Police Station.

(2.) THE material on record shows that cr. No. 35/2006 was registered by Ramannapet police on 06-6-2006 on the information recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police himself alleging that 37 members of 'a' party and 38 members of 'b' party belonging to Yellanki village belonged to Congress-l and CPI (M) parties respectively. They have grudges and quarrels leading to representations to the Collector and other officials and organization of Dharnas before the Collectorate. Complaints were lodged by the opposing grounds on 29-4-2006, 26-4-2006, 05-5-2006 and 04-6-2006 and there were incidents on 29-4-2006 and 06-6-2006. After the Sub-Inspector visited the village on 06-6-2006, he came to a conclusion on inquiry about both the groups creating problems to commit offences against human body and he initiated action under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to prevent breach of peace and disturbance to public tranquility. On such information, the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Bhongircalled upon the members of both parties to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds for keeping peace for a period of one year or until the completion of the inquiry in the matter and bind themselves not to commit breach of peace and to forfeit Rs. 5,000/- each to the Government in case of default. The members of both parties are directed to appear before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhongiron 15-6-2006 at 10. 30 a. m.

(3.) THE petitioners herein belong to 'b' party and claimed the opposite party to be responsible for the events and further claimed to be very poor, eking out their livelihood with great difficulty. The contended that the maximum period for which the bonds could have been obtained from them is only for one year and the proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely and are hence liable to be quashed.