AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chinnappa Reddy, J.—This application u/s 561A Criminal Procedure Code is entirely misconceived. In this application the petitioner seeks to have quashed an order of the Commissioner of Police u/s 26 (1) of the Hyderabad City Police act of 1348 Fasli directing the petitioner to remove himself form the area of Kachiguda and shift himself to the area within the limits of Trimulgherry Police Circle and not leave that are for a period of one year.
2 Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make suitable orders (1) to give effect to any order under the Code (2) to present abuse of the process of the court or (3) to secure the ends of justice, to make appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice does not empower the High Court with any omnipotent power. The order to be made by High Court u/s 561-A to secure the ends of justice must be in relation to a proceedings in the High Court or in any subordinate Criminal Court and that proceedings too must have judicial character and must not be a proceedings of an executive or administrative character. The Commissioner of Police acting u/s 26 of the Hyderabad City Police Act cannot be called subordinate Criminal Court, nor can be said to exercise any judicial functions. Mr. Lakshminarayana points out that the Commissioner of Police is First Class Magistrate for certain purposes mentioned in Section 47 of the Hyderabed City Police act namely Section 86, 87, 90 and 91 of the Hyderabad Code of Criminal Procedure. the Commissioner functions as 1st Class Magistrate only for those limited purposes and not when he makes an order u/s 26 of the Act. It is also further urged that there is a provision in Section 26 (7) for hearing the person against whom an order u/s 26 (1) is proposed to be made and therefore, the order must be considered to be of judicial character. It is difficult to agree with this contention. Merely because a statute contains a provision for hearing a person against whom orders are proposed to be made the order does not occurs in the Chapter relating to Police Regulations and Rules for Preservation of order. An order u/s 26 (1) is clearly of an executive character. I therefore, hold that the application u/s 561-A is not maintainable. It is, therefore dismissed.
Application dismissed.
* * *