Disposed

Bhukya Lokeswara Rao, v. Adothu Beemudu

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2020CRLP/5042/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 226 style criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a notice to bond for keeping peace between two groups over a land dispute, the court directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to expeditiously consider the petitioners' already submitted explanation and the plea regarding juvenile status within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to consider the petitioners' explanation and the plea regarding juvenile status and pass appropriate orders within fifteen days.

Bhukya Lokeswara Rao, Vs Adothu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5042 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), is filed challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 113 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada, directing the petitioners, who are shown as ‘A’ group in the said notice to appear before him on 07-11-2020 at 11-00 A.M. to show-cause why they should not be required to execute bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for a like sum to keep the peace for a period of one year.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 11^th respondent/State and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 10.

¶5

A perusal of the impugned notice dated 09-10-2020 shows that as there exists a dispute between ‘A’ group and ‘B’ group, who are the residents of Jayanthipuram village of Jaggayyapet Mandal, relating to a land covered by R.S.No.149/1 to 149/6 and as both the parties are at logger heads in connection with the said dispute and quarrelling with each other and filing cases and counter cases against each other, claiming title over the said land, making rival claims, in respect of the said land in question, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate having found that there is a likelihood of committing the acts of breach of peace by both ‘A’ group and ‘B’ group persons in connection with the said dispute, he has issued the impugned notice calling

¶6

¶7

upon the persons of both ‘A’ group and ‘B’ group to appear before him on 07-11-2020 at 11-00 A.M. and to show-cause why they should not execute bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties for a like sum to keep peace for a term of one year.

¶8

At the time of hearing this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein, who are shown as ‘A’ group in the impugned notice, have already made their appearance before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate pursuant to the impugned notice given to them and that they have already submitted their explanation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the same is pending consideration before him. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that some of the petitioners herein are juveniles and as such, the impugned notice issued to them is ex facie illegal.

¶9

Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioners herein, who are the members of ‘A’ group in the impugned notice, have already submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of learned SubDivisional Magistrate and made their appearance pursuant to the impugned notice given to them and as they have already submitted their explanation, which is pending consideration before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate including the vital plea raised relating to the fact that some of the petitioners herein are juveniles, this Court is of the considered view that this criminal petition can be disposed of with a direction to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to consider the said explanation of the petitioners including the plea that some of the petitioners are juveniles, expeditiously and dispose of the said case by passing an appropriate order according to law by

¶10

¶11

fixing a time limit to that effect would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

Therefore, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vijayawada to consider the explanation of the petitioners submitted by them before him and also the plea relating to fact that some of the petitioners are juveniles and that the impugned notice issued against them is not valid and pass appropriate orders accordingly as per law within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶15

Date : 08-12-2020 ARR

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5042 OF 2020

¶19

Date : 08-12-2020

¶20

ARR

Bhukya Lokeswara Rao, v. Adothu Beemudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhukya Lokeswara Rao, v. Adothu Beemudu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chukka Kanaka Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Gandluru Nageshwaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammula Sivannarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Muralidhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Sreenivasulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gandluru. Idayatulla, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh