Delhi District Court
Smt. Gagandeep Kaur @ Bobby vs State Of Delhi on 3 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR No.01/15
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0039602015
1. Smt. Gagandeep Kaur @ Bobby
W/o Sh. Happy Singh Suri
2. Sh. Happy Singh Suri
S/o Sh. B.S.Suri
Both R/o 124A, Baldev Park,
Jagat Puri, Delhi. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Delhi
2. Sh.Neeraj Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ram Prakash Gupta
R/o 124, Baldev Park, Jagat Puri,
Delhi110051. ... Respondents
Date of Institution : 02.02.2015
Date of order reserved : 02.06.2015
Date of order : 03.07.2015
O R D E R
The revisionists have filed this revision petition against issuance of notice U/s 111 Cr.P.C. against them by the Court of Ld. SEM on 17.11.2014 in the proceedings initiated under Section CR NO. 01/15 Smt.Gagandeep Kaur @ Bobby vs. State etc. Page 1 of 5 107/150 Cr.P.C. on the complaint of respondent No.2 herein. 2 Grounds of revision petition are that on 10.11.2014, revisionist No.2 was out of Delhi and came back only on 19.11.2014; notice/ proceedings are against the facts and law and without application of mind.
3 Notice of the revision petition was issued to the State as well as to respondent No.2. Record of Ld. SEM was summoned. A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No2 denying the case of the revisionists and alleging that revisionists are quarrelsome persons and proceedings have been rightly initiated against them.
4 I have heard counsel for the revisionist, respondent No.2 as well as Ld. Chief PP for the State/Respondent No.1 and have gone through revision file as well as Trial Court file. 5 It appears that both the neighbours i.e. the complainant and present revisionists are quarreling with each other on petty issues. In the present petition, the revisionists have challenged the proceedings under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. initiated on the complaint of Neeraj Gupta and his wife Smt. Abha Gupta vide Kalandra dated 17.11.2014. On the other hand, on the complaint of CR NO. 01/15 Smt.Gagandeep Kaur @ Bobby vs. State etc. Page 2 of 5 present revisionist No.1, another Kalandra was registered under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. and notices have been issued to Neeraj Gupta, Abha Gupta and Vikas Gupta. The present revisionist No.1 had approached Delhi Commission for Women where the complainant Neeraj Gupta (respondent No.2) and his wife Abha Gupta had appeared. This is a case where personal grudges of two neighbours are being settled by invoking Government Machinery, namely, Police and Delhi Commission for Women etc. I do not find any plausible cause to presume breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility, so requirement of section 107 Cr.P.C. are not fulfilled.
6 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of "Aarti Singh vs. State & Others" 2000 I AD (Cr.) DHC 418. Relevant Para 5 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: " The aforesaid statement of SI Hulas Giri clearly shows that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of the property bearing No.110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi and admittedly the petitioner Ajay Narain has already filed a Civil Suit against the petitioner Smt. Arti Singh iln respect of the said property. That being so, the members of the public were not affected by the alleged acts, action or conduct of the petitioners. The underlying object of the Section 107 Cr.P.C. is preventive and not penal. CR NO. 01/15 Smt.Gagandeep Kaur @ Bobby vs. State etc. Page 3 of 5 (Ramnarain Singh and others vs. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 2225). The sole object of initiating proceedings under Section 107 of the Code is to maintain public peace and tranquility and can not be used as a handle in case of a private dispute between individuals where there is no material disturbance to public tranquility or public peace. In the facts and circumstances o the case, there was absolutely no justification for initiating proceedings under Section 107 of the Code against the petitioners. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed."
7 Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Jayant D Shah & 4 Others vs. State of Maharashtra 405 Crimes II 1986 has ruled as under : " I shall point out presently, the powers under the provisions of Sections, 107, 108,109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have to be made use only in cases of a grave nature such as provided for in these Sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure".
" I do not think that trivial incidents can form the basis of proceedings for furnishing security or bond for good behaviour under Sections 107 to 110. It is only in matters likely to result in grave consequences and where there is a real threat to the breach of peace that an Executive Magistrate has to invoke his powers under Sections 107 to 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."CR NO. 01/15 Smt.Gagandeep Kaur @ Bobby vs. State etc. Page 4 of 5
8 In the present case, these two neighbours have their own personal grudges against each other on various issues. They may file criminal complaints if the offences alleged against each other are noncognizable or they may get an FIR recorded in case cognizable offences are alleged. But the Machinery under section 107/150 Cr.P.C. can not be used to settle their personal grudges against each other as held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and other High Courts. The issues in dispute are very minor like parking of vehicles, fixing of iron angle or water pipe etc. These small issues are leading to making allegations and counter allegations against each other. 9 Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason for continuing proceedings under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. against the present revisionists. Same are hereby quashed. 10 Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of the order. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court ( TALWANT SINGH )
Dated: 03.07.2015 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
CR NO. 01/15 Smt.Gagandeep Kaur @ Bobby vs. State etc. Page 5 of 5