AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Lakshman, J
This Writ Petition is filed under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the proceedings in Crime No.99 of 2020 pending on the
file of Dhanwada Police Station, Narayanapet District for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short ‘Code’) as illegal and to set aside the same.
Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home & Law. Perused the
record.
Respondent No.3 - Station House Officer, Dhanwada Police Station, Narayanapet District, has registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2020
for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code against the petitioners herein. In the FIR, it is mentioned that the petitioners herein are
having disputes with their relative, Mr. Nagi Reddy S/o Basireddy, in respect of agricultural land situated at Gotur, shivar of Dhanwada. In the
said connection, respondent No.3 has received six petitions, out of which, he has registered two crimes on two petitions, one was refused as
petty case and other three petitions were closed stating that they are ‘civil in nature’. Instead of solving civil disputes, the petitioners are
creating nuisance and causing inconvenience to the local regular habitants. Thus, there is law and order problem affecting the public
tranquility. It is also mentioned in the FIR that respondent No.3 has apprehended the petitioners on 03.12.2020 and informed about their arrest,
produced them before respondent No.6 to bind over them to keep good behaviour for a period of six (06) months and registered a case suo-
moto in Crime No.99 of 2020 for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code. It is further mentioned that respondent No.3 has examined
all the witnesses in detail and recorded their statements in Part-II CD and, therefore, arrested them. Therefore, it is quite necessary to
summon both groups and bind over them to ensure public peace and tranquility in the village. With the said contentions, respondent No.3 has
requested respondent No.6 - Tahsildar, Dhanwada Mandal, to issue summons to the petitioners, bind over them and initiate action under
Section - 110 (e) of the Code by obtaining interim bonds for keeping good behaviour and maintaining peace and tranquility.
Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the police have no power to register a case for the
offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code. There is procedure prescribed to pass orders as per Section - 110 (e) of the Code. The police
have not followed the said procedure in the present case.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners herein are absolute owners and possessors of land
admeasuring Acs.5.00 guntas in Survey No.386/A; Acs.2-00 guntas in Survey No.435/A; Acs.1-14 guntas in Survey No.436/A; Acs.1-13
guntas in Survey No.436/A; Acs.1-13 guntas in Survey No.436/E, Acs.2-27 guntas in Survey No.390/A; Acs.5-23 guntas in Survey
Nos.435/A; Acs.14-15 guntas in Survey No.447, situated at Goturu Village of Dhanwada Mandal, Narayanapet District. They have
purchased the said land under different sale deeds. They are cultivating the said land by raising jowar and paddy crops etc. The learned
counsel would further submit that when Mrs. Krishnaveni, wife of Nagi Reddy, and others interfered with the possession of the petitioners
over the said land, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and another filed a suit vide O.S. No.3 of 2020 for perpetual injunction and the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Narayanapet, has passed order of status quo on 30.06.2020 in I.A. No.31 of 2020 in O.S.No.3 of 2020 on merits.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that respondent No.5 - Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter dated
29.07.2020 to respondent No.6 informing that the Circle Inspector, Marikal vide letter dated 20.07.2020 informed about the complaints
received from Reddy Gouni Ravinder Reddy and others and about the damage caused to the sorghum crop and also the law and order
problem, and requested respondent No.6 to submit a detailed report in the matter. Accordingly, respondent No.6 vide his letter dated
30.09.2020 informed respondent No.5 that there is a case pending in O.S. No.3 of 2020 and status quo order was passed in I.A. No.31 of
2020. It was further informed to wait till disposal of the said case.
The said R. Ravinder Reddy and others have asked to survey the land by fixing boundaries. Since matter is pending in the Court, survey may
not be taken up at that point of time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No.2 has also lodged a complaint with
respondent No.4 - District Collector on 28.10.2020 narrating all the facts, and requested to take necessary action against respondent Nos.5
and 6 for interfering with the possession when the matter is pending before the Civil Court, wherein status quo order is in subsistence.
By referring to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioners
and others. Civil suit is pending vide O.S. No.3 of 2020, and status quo order was passed in I.A. No.31 of 2020 on merits and the same is in
subsistence.
Respondent No.3 has filed counter stating that a suo-moto case vide Crime No.46 of 2020 was registered against the petitioners herein for
the offences under Sections - 341, 342, 188, 271 and 290 of IPC and Section - 3 of the Epdemic Disease Act, 1897since the petitioners are
blocking the police way by sitting across the gate, confined 100 dial cops and, thus, they have created public nuisance by defying COVID-19
rules in respect of the land in dispute. It is also stated that on the complaint lodged by Mr. Mala Sanjanna, the very same police have
registered a case in Crime No.98 of 2020 for the offences under Sections - 324 and 109 read with 34 of IPC on the ground that they have
obstructed the complainant and two other victims and attacked on them.
 It is further stated that in order to maintain law and order problem, peace and tranquility in the village, respondent No.3 has apprehended
the petitioners on 03.12.2020, informed the grounds of their arrest and produced before respondent No.6, praying to bind over the petitioners
to keep good behaviour for a period of six (06) months. Accordingly, a suo-moto case vide Crime No.99 of 2020 was registered for the
offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code. By referring to the same, respondent No.3 has contended that unless and until the petitioners are
bounded over by respondent No.6, there is every chance that they may cause heavy law and order problem and registration of the said suo-
moto case is in view of the public interest but not otherwise. It is also specifically stated in the counter that respondent No.6 has not passed
any order till date binding over the parties. With the said contentions, respondent No.3 sought to dismiss the present writ petition.
 In view of the said submissions, it is apt to refer to Section 2 110 of the Code, which is as under:
“110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his
local jurisdiction a person who-
-----,
- - - - -, or
- - - - -, or
- - - - -, or
habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or
habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of-
any offence under one or more of the following. Acts, namely:-
(a) -----;
(b) -----;
(c) -----;
(d) -----;
(e) -----;
(f) -----;
(g) -----;
(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of
corruption, or
(g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the
manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good
behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.â€
Thus, there is a procedure prescribed under Section - 110 of the Code. The said procedure is required to be followed. But, the police without
following the said procedure, have registered the present crime for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code.
It is apt to note that Section - 110 of the Code deals with ‘security for good behaviour from habitual offenders’, and the Executive
Magistrate has to make an order under Section - 111 of the Code setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of bond
to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.
It is also relevant to note that Chapter - XII of the Code deals with ‘information to the police and their powers to investigate’. As
per Section - 154 of the Code, every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an Officer In-charge of
a Police Station, shall be reduced in writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information,
whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in
a book to be kept by such Officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Whereas, in the present case, as per
FIR, the Station House Officer himself is the complainant / informant and he himself has registered the present case under Section - 110 (e)
of the Code. Respondent No.3 instead of sending the information to respondent No.6, he himself registered the present crime. In fact, Section
- 110 (e) of the Code is not a penal provision under Indian Penal Code and it is only a procedural under the Code for the purpose of securing
good behaviour from the habitual offender.
In Banala Subhashini v. The State of Telangana 2017 SCC OnL:ine Hyd. 140, this Court had an occasion to deal with the scope and ambit
of Section -145 of the Code the powers of the Executive Magistrate, and by relying upon various judgments of Apex Court, it had held that the
Executive Magistrate cannot pass any order, once there is anything to say that prima facie, any person in possession and once there is a civil
matter pending.
In view of the said principle, and also coming to the present case, as discussed above, admittedly there is a civil suit pending in O.S. No.3
of 2020. Status quo order was passed in I.A. No.31 of 2020 on merits and the same is in subsistence. Respondent No.6 has referred to the
same in his letter dated 30.09.2020 and informed respondent No.5 that conducting survey may not be taken up and that they have to wait till
disposal of the case. Without considering the same, it appears from the record that, respondent No.3 has requested respondent No.6 to issue
summons to the petitioners, bind over them and initiate action under Section - 110 (e) of the Code by obtaining interim bonds from the
petitioners for keeping good behaviour and for maintaining peace and tranquility. Respondent No.3 has also registered the present case for the
offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code.
As stated above, there is a procedure prescribed under Section - 110 of the Code to be followed. As per the said Section, when an
Executive Magistrate receives information within his local jurisdiction, a person who, habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the
commission of offences, involving a breach of the peace, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to
show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three (03)
years, as the Magistrate thinks fit. He has to make an order under Section - 111 of the Code. Without following the said procedure,
respondent No.3 has registered the present case for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code, that too during pendency of the civil suit.
Thus, respondent No.3 has not followed the procedure laid down under Section - 110 of the Code, more particularly Section - 110 (e) of the
Code. As stated supra, Section - 110 of the Code is procedural in securing good behaviour from the habitual offender and it is not a penal
provision under IPC. In view of the above said discussion, the contention of respondent No.3 that a suo-moto case vide in Crime No.99 of
2020 was registered under Section - 110 (e) of the Code to maintain the law and order problem and peace and tranquility in the Village and
also to bind over the petitioners to keep good behaviour for six months is untenable. As stated above, if at all respondent No.3 is having any
such law and order problem, he has to submit information to respondent No.6 with all supporting documents in accordance with Section - 110
of the Code with a request to bind over the habitual offenders in order to secure good behaviour. Respondent No.6 has to follow the
procedure laid down under Section - 110 of the Code by issuing show-cause notice and he shall pass an order under Section - 111 of the
Code. But, respondent No.3 cannot register a case under Section - 110 of the Code. Therefore, viewed from any angle, registration of present
crime by respondent No.3 is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No.99 of 2020 pending on the file of Dhanwada Police Station,
Narayanapet District registered for the offence under Section - 110 (e) of the Code against the petitioners are hereby quashed declaring them
as illegal. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
However, it is relevant to note that this Court has noticed that the police officials have registered FIRs by mentioning the offences under
Sections - 107 and 110 of the Code. Chapter - VIII of the Code deals with ‘security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour’.
The procedure is contemplated in various provisions of the said Chapter including Sections - 106, 107 and 110 of the Code. Section - 106 of
the Code deals with ‘security for keeping the peace on conviction’; Section - 107 of the Code deals with ‘securing for keeping the
peace in other cases; and Section - 110 of the Code deals with ‘security for good behaviour from habitual offender’. The procedure is
also contemplated in Chapter - VIII. The Executive Magistrate acting under Sections - 107, 108, 109 and 110 of the Code on receipt of
information, deems it necessary to require any person to show-cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing setting forth the
substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the  number,
character, and class of sureties (if any) required. Thus, the said procedure is contemplated under Chapter - VIII of the Code and the same is
procedural.
As stated above this Court has noticed that Police Officials have been registering several FIRs by mentioning the offences as Sections - 107,
110 and other provisions of the Code and the said registration of crime by mentioning the said sections is illegal. Several petitions under
Section - 482 of the Code were filed before this Court seeking to quash the said FIRs. This Court has allowed the said petitions and quashed
the FIRs. Thus, the police officials are burdening themselves by committing the very same illegality registering the FIRs mentioning the
offences under Sections - 107, 110 and other provisions of the Code and they are also burdening this Court, which has to be avoided.
In view of the same, the Principal Secretary, Home Department and the Director General of Police, State of Telangana, are hereby directed
to look into the said matter and issue necessary instructions to the Police Officials not to register FIRs mentioning the offences as Sections -
107, 110 and other provisions of the Code.
Registrar (Judicial - I) is also directed to circulate a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Home Department and the DGP, State of
Telangana, for taking necessary steps.