K. VENUGOPALA REDDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is for quashing proceedings started under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. An order under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code was issued on 12th September 1957. The ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that from the time order was made alleging that the parties are likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity, nearly two years have elapsed and that at this distance of time the piquant situation does not continue, and that it is upto the Court to issue a fresh notice and enquire into it afresh even if it be found to be go, but that it is not at all necessary to prolong the proceedings over such long period, as it is against the spirit of section 107, Criminal Procedure Code itself.

(2.) The bonds were executed on 24th January, 1957. The order mentioned 9 incidents in regard to which there have been the subject-matter of criminal cases file subsequently, but it is stated by the petitioner that they all ended in acquittal and the same is not denied by the prosecution. The other six incidents relate to assault or abuse which are trivial happening about which no proceedings seem to have been ever commenced and are such as could not be established by proof. The case has undergone 38 adjournments and limit of time for which the bonds would be enforced i.e., for a year as stated in section 107, has been exceeded. When it is remembered that the security proceedings are not meant to be penal provisions for dealing with any offences but are only to afford safeguards for maintaining public peace or tranquillity, not only expeditious action is called for, but prompt dealing with the mattes is absolutely necessary. A prolongation of these proceedings for whatever reasons, is not calculated to achieve this object. Any simmering has necessarily to be avoided ; because on the other hand, as the proceedings have grown stale, any raking up of the matters would not conduce to better relations between the parties but only for reviving unpleasant memories leading to fresh troubles. Such ought not to be the effect of proceedings which are calculated to maintain and further administration of justice, with a view to preserve peace or maintain tranquillity.

(3.) Further, it is always open to the police to lay an information before a Magistrate if the same circumstances still exist or fresh trouble is likely to start; and in any case for the continuance of the proceedings which have been started under section 107, Criminal Proceedings Code, such as averment anew at least is a necessity if the proceedings already are in any special circumstances necessary to be continued. But such is not in evidence here. To have continue the proceedings merely because they have been started therefore lacks justification. For these reasons, I consider that a secure the ends of justice, it is not necessary any longer to proceed with this security case.