Petitioned to quash FIR registered under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by police. Court held police lack power to register FIR for land disputes; only Executive Magistrate can initiate proceedings. FIR quashed as illegal.
Criminal Petition allowed by quashing F.I.R. No. 118 of 2013 registered against Biccavole Police Station.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.12849 OF 2013 Dated 23-6-2014
Between:
Padala Sunitha.
..Petitioner.
And:
The State represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.12849 OF 2013 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings in Crime No. 118 of 2013 of Biccavole Police Station, East Godavari District which is registered for the offence under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for petitioner submitted that according to the provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C., the Executive Magistrate is vested with the powers to enquire into the dispute relating to land or water after receiving report or information to that effect from Police officer.
The grievance of the petitioner is that Station House Officer registered F.I.R. in respect of land dispute and forwarded that F.I.R. to the Executive Magistrate. Advocate for petitioner further submitted that police have no power to register F.I.R. for the offence under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and this court in K.GURAVAIAH & OTHERS v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND ANOTHER ([1] ) held that there will not be any cognizable offences in so far as Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings are concerned and giving F.I.R. after registering a crime in such cases is not only out-side the realm of law and would likely to lead to abuse of power by certain unscrupulous police officers and therefore, the proceedings are to be quashed.
Advocate for second respondent submitted that only F.I.R. is registered and the same was forwarded to the Executive Magistrate for necessary action and that no steps are taken for arrest of ‘A’ party or ‘B’ party and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings.
I have perused the F.I.R. and other material papers including the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Biccavole.
According to report of Sub-Inspector, ‘A’ party is residing in Oduru village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal and ‘B’ party is residing in Komaripalem village, Biccavole Mandal. According to the report, because of the dispute between these two parties, there is likelihood of law and order problem disturbing peace in and around the jurisdiction of Komaripalem village o f Biccavole Mandal. The Sub-Inspector of Police, observed that both groups are indulged in unlawful activities and without securing presence, it is unsafe to carry two groups to maintain public piece and tranquility. The Sub-Inspector of Police requested the Executive Magistrate, Biccavole to enquire into the matter by calling both the parties.
As seen from the material, there are some civil proceedings between the parties.
Now the main grievance of the advocate for petitioner is that respondent police officials are not
competent to register any crime against any person under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and it is the Executive Magistrate who is competent to initiate Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings if he feels that there is a dispute regarding property or water. Admittedly, no such proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated by the Executive Magistrate against either of the parties.
According to the advocate for petitioner, registering F.I.R. for the offence under Section 145 Cr.P.C., by a Police Officer is illegal and continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, the same has to be quashed.
To support his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of this court first cited (K.GURAVAIAH & OTHERS vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & ANOTHER)). In that case also, Police officers registered F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, this court observed as follows:
“Therefore, this Court is of the view that even though provisions of Cr.P.C. do not contemplate registration of a crime and issuing of F.I.R. by a police officer in proceedings relating to Section 145 Cr.P.C. giving F.I.R. after registering a crime in such cases is not only out-side the realm of law and would likely to lead to abuse of power by certain unscrupulous police officers. This cannot be permitted in law.”
While observing so, this court quashed proceedings relating to F.I.R. No.91 of 2010 of Kurnool-II Town Police Station issued under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In this case also Sub-Inspector of Police, Biccavole instead of sending a report to the Executive Magistrate to proceed under Section 145 Cr.P.C., registered F.I.R. for an offence under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which is not provided in Cr.P.C.
As rightly pointed out by Advocate for petitioner,
if such F.I.R. is allowed to continue, it would amount to abuse of process of law and the Police Officers may take undue advantage of it. In view of the decision of this court, referred above, I am of the view that the proceedings in F.I.R. in Cr.No.118 of 2013 of Biccavole Police Station registered under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed on the ground that such registration is not permissible under law.
Learned advocate for second respondent requested this court to permit the second respondent to forward the same report to the Mandal Executive Magistrate to proceed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. for which advocate for petitioner submitted that the alleged apprehension of breach of peace was in September, 2013 and now after gap of nearly one year time, it is not known whether the same situation exists or not and therefore, he cannot forward the same report and if the Police Officer feels that still there is apprehension of breach of peace, he can now assess situation and send a fresh report but cannot forward the same.
I find some force in the submission of the advocate for petitioner because proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C. are only to meet urgent situation like breach of peace and even according to the procedure, Executive Magistrate has to decide whether the proceedings shall continue or not while dealing with the dispute between the parties.
So, Police Officer has to assess the present situation afresh and if there is any likelihood of breach of peace attracting provisions of Section 145 Cr.P.C., then he is at liberty to give a report to the Executive Magistrate.
With this observation, this Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No. 118 of
2013 of Biccavole Police Station, East Godavari District.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
_______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
Dated 23-6-2014. Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12849 OF 2013 Dated 23-6-2014
Dvs
[1] CDJ 2010 APHC 262
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a police officer has the competence to register an F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
Whether proceedings initiated by registering an F.I.R. under Section 145 Cr.P.C. amount to abuse of process of law
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. GURAVAIAH & OTHERS v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & ANOTHERRelied on¶12
K.GURAVAIAH & OTHERS v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANOTHER (1)
CDJ 2010 APHC 262Relied on¶37
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Padala Sunitha
The State
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
S. RAVI KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
