Pidaparthy Lakshmi Kumari v. The State of A.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to act in
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 420
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 145, 145(1)
Judgment
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings in RCO No.152/07 on the file of the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that one Mukkera Venkata Ramana and the petitioner herein both jointly purchased an extent of 55 cents in R.S.No.41/3 situated at Pedakomira revenue village, Tiruvuru madnal, Krishna Distirct vide registered sale deed, dated 28.03.2007 from K.Naga Prasada Rao and K.Satya Kumari. It is stated that one K.Venkateshwara Rao made a private
complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru stating that the petitioner and her co-vendee Venkataramana deceitfully purchased the said property though their vendor has no right over the said property and accordingly a case in Crime No.64 of 2007 was registered under Section 420 I.P.C. by the third respondent. It is stated that the third respondent addressed a letter to the second respondent as to who is the pattedar of the said property and whose name is recorded in the revenue records and also to furnish the photostat copies of the revenue records. It is further requested to issue notices to both parties and take appropriate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said letter, dated 08.05.2007, the second respondent issued a notice to the husband of the petitioner stating that there is a dispute with regard to the said property and a criminal case in Crime No.64 of 2007 was also registered by the third respondent requesting to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and in that connection to maintain law and order, the petitioner’s husband was requested to appear on 28.05.2007 at 11.00 a.m. along with the relevant documents. It is stated that the petitioner also accompanied her husband and appeared before the second respondent on
Operative part
28.05.2007 and produced the relevant documents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said notice issued by the second respondent directing to appear the petitioner’s husband or the petitioner without making an order in writing upon the information received or on the report of the police officer with regard to the alleged dispute likely to cause breach of peace concerning the said land, the parties concerned to the dispute cannot be required to attend his Court. It is stated that to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. there should be allegations about the definite claim of a party in respect of the immovable property with regard to the actual possession. The Executive Magistrate can decide the issue of actual possession on a particular date alone but he has no authority to decide the right, title or interest over the property. It is stated that without making an order asking the petitioner and her husband to attend the Court of second respondent is illegal and contrary to Section 145 Cr.P.C. The perusal of the letter, dated 08.05.2007 goes to show that the third respondent only requested the second respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. But, it is not known as to whether the said order has been passed as contemplated under Section 145 (1) Cr.P.C. That being so, without passing an order in writing, the question of issuing notice asking the petitioner’s husband to appear before the second respondent does not arise. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to act in accordance with Section 145 Cr.P.C. as no order has been passed in writing on the report of the police officer received relating to the dispute of the said property and whether there was any likelihood of causing breach of peace with regard to the respective claims with respect of actual possession of the said subject matter of the dispute. Insofar as the criminal case is concerned, it is open for the third respondent to investigate and proceed in accordance with law. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:25.06.2007 Note: Furnish C.C. within a week. B/o
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to act in
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 145, 145(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 25 Jun 2007. The bench was V ESWARAIAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.