Delhi District Court
Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 9 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 196/2021
CNR No.: DLCT01-014143-2021
Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey
W/o Late Anil Dubey
R/o H. No. 782/2, Pratapganj
Sargarh, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496 445
Presently residing at:
Khasra No. 1/25, First Floor
on the roof of Om Medical Shop
main Chowk Burari, Burari
Delhi-110084
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 23.10.2021
Date of Arguments : 09.02.2023
Date of Order : 09.02.2023
ORDER
1. The criminal revision petition under Section 397 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' (Hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against order dated 29.09.2021 in File No. 175/2021 titled as 'State vs. Ranjeeta Dubey & Ors.' arising from kalandra vide GD No. 146A dated 20.09.2021 under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. registered at PS Burari whereby Special Executive Magistrate, North District, Delhi (Hereinafter 'Ld. SEM') issued notice to the petitioner under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. directing her to appear before him and show cause why she should not be directed to execute bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year.
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 1 of 12 BRIEF FACTS:
2. On 20.09.2021, ASI Rishikesh Yadav lodged GD No. 146A with PS Burari that on receipt of complaint dated 10.09.2021 made by the petitioner, he reached at 'Om Medical Store, 1st Floor, near Janta Medical Store, main 100 Foota Road, Burari, Delhi' where he met the petitioner and made enquiry from her. The petitioner stated that she married with Inam Ali according to Muslim Rites and Rituals who is harassing her and not giving maintenance and quarrels with her everyday. ASI Rishikesh Yadav made enquiry from Inam Ali who stated that he is already married and he is in 'live in relationship' with the petitioner, as per mutual understanding and she is blackmailing him and asking him to transfer property in her name and she frequently quarrel with him and his wife, namely, Ms. Imrana and for that reason, he is disturbed and she threatens to implicate him in a false case and makes PCR call on trivial issues. On enquiry, it revealed that the petitioner and Inam Ali made several complaints against each other. On instruction of SHO, PS Burari, he lodged kalandra under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and Inam Ali.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. SEM:
3. Vide order dated 29.09.2021, Ld. SEM, Sarai Rohilla issued notice to the petitioner, as under:
"Perused kalandra and record. Statement of IO recorded on file. Matter relates to dispute over live in relationship and maintenance. Issue notice against respondents for dt. 11/10/2021 in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each U/sec. 107/111 Cr.P.C."
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 2 of 12 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 107/111 CR.PC:
4. Notice under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. issued by Ld. SEM, North District, Delhi is as under:
"NOTICE U/S 107/111 Cr.P.C.
Whereas it has been made to appear before me by reliable information and report through S.H.O. Burari filed by A.S.I Rishikesh that you have inimical terms with Inam Ali which is other party, matter relates to dispute over live in relationship and maintenance type of issues. You also threatened other party for dire consequences on and likely to cause breach of peace.
It has been alleged that there is very serious tension between you and other party and are likely to do a wrongful act which may result in the breach of peace within the local limit in my jurisdiction and I am satisfied from the police report that there are sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings against you.
Therefore, I Alka Azad, Special Executive Magistrate, North District, Delhi, do hereby require you to appear in the court on 11-10-2021 at 02.00 P.M. and show cause why you should not be bound with a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year. Given under my seal of this court on 29-09-2021."
GROUNDS OF REVISION:
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner preferred the criminal revision petition on the grounds, as under:
(a) The petitioner lodged complaint pertaining to commission of offences of cheating, rape on concealment of identity, religion and marital status etc. However, PS Burari had not taken any action against the accused persons;
(b) The impugned order was passed without following due process of law; and
(c) The petitioner was implicated as she lodged complaints to Senior Officers of Police for taking action against the accused persons"
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 3 of 12 APPEARANCE:
6. I have heard arguments of Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State / the respondent and examined trial Court record.
CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:
7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Ld. SEM passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner without application of mind. He contended that the petitioner is a widow.
He contended that Inam Ali concealed his religion and marital status and married the petitioner on 23.03.2021. He contended that Inam Ali extorted an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- besides gold and silver jewellery from the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner learnt that Inam Ali is married and he has three children. He contended that Inam Ali forced the petitioner to convert her religion. He contended that the petitioner again married Inam Ali on 15.06.2021, according to muslim rites and rituals. He contended that Inam Ali used to physically assault the petitioner and did not allow her to practice her religion. He contended that Inam Ali was seeking share in the property inherited by the petitioner's son. He contended that Inam Ali and his associates threatened the petitioner and in that regard, the petitioner made complaint on 04.08.2021. He contended that Inam Ali robbed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and gold jewellery and physically assaulted her and in that regard, the petitioner made complaint to PS Burari on 10.09.2021. He contended that the police implicated the petitioner in this case. He contended that the proceeding under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. deserves to be quashed.
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 4 of 12 CONTENTIONS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE / THE RESPONDENT:
8. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He contended that Ld. SEM considered kalandra, complaints made by the petitioner and Inam Ali and his wife, namely, Smt. Imrana against each other. STATUTORY PROVISIONS:
9. The sections relevant to the subject matter of the petition are as under:
"107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.- (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond [with or without sureties] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
111. Order to be made.- When a Magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110, 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."
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 5 of 12 JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:
10. In Madhu Limaye vs. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Monghyr & Ors., (1970) 3 SCC 746, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered scope of Section 107 Cr.PC, as under:
"33. The section is aimed at persons who cause a reasonable apprehension of conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity. This is an instance of preventive justice which the Courts are intended to administer. This provision like the preceding one is in aid of orderly society and seeks to nip in the bud conduct subversive of the peace and public tranquillity. For this purpose Magistrates are invested with large judicial discretionary powers for the preservation of public peace and order.....
35. We have seen the provisions of Section 107. That section says that action is to be taken 'in the manner hereinafter provided' and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous, that this liberty should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned....."
11. In Sana Nadim Pawaskar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2003 SCC OnLine Bombay 168, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had the occasion to consider an identical issue, as under:
"3. Whenever, a Magistrate decides to issue a notice in view of provisions of Section 111 of the Code, he has to given sufficient idea to the petitioner for knowing the exact nature of apprehension, which is lingering in the mind of the Magistrate in respect of the possibility of breach of public peace. Those instances should be, serious enough to really cause a threat to the public tranquillity. Domestic quarrels are common with human beings, because, on account of conflict of personalities, there are bound to be bickerings and disputes. Those disputes can be settled in the domestic domain and they generally do not cause any danger to the public peace as such.
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 6 of 12
4. In the present case, the two instances which have been quoted are petty matters and they show by themselves that they are nothing but domestic differences of opinion. The learned Magistrate has also apprehension that on account of inter - religion marriage between both the petitioners, there would be breach of public peace. It appears to be a timid apprehension. Unless there are compelling grounds and unless there is sufficient material on record to justify such apprehension, the Magistrate should not take any cognizance of the inter religion marriage by itself as a ground for breach of public peace..... While issuing a notice under Section 111 of the Code, the Magistrate is obliged to a judicial performance as the said act is judicial work and therefore, he has to apply judicial mind and such order should not be issued, as if they are outcome of mechanical process.
5. As the learned Magistrate has not followed the spirit of provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code, the order which has been assailed will have to be set- aside. Thus, petition stands allowed....."
12. In Christalin Costa (Smt.) & Ors. vs. State of Goa & Ors., 1992 SCC OnLine Bom 252; Hon'ble Bombay High Court was dealing with a matter pertaining to initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.PC against the neighbours. Their relations were quite strained and there were constant quarrels on account of which police complaints and counter complaints were lodged by both the parties. While the proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.PC were pending, another complaint was lodged leading to initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.PC. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held as under:
"7.....Obviously when there are quarrels between two private individuals it appears that this situation is not contemplated by these legal provisions. Quarrels between individuals are not normally creating any problem of public order and at the most it may lead to a problem of law and order to be dealt with by the appropriate penal law.
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 7 of 12 Proceedings under Section 107 are always dealing with preventive measures to be taken by the Magistrates in order to pre-empt any possibility of breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity. In the case of Jayant D. Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (1986) 1 Crimes 405, this Court has held that the provisions of Sections 107 to 110 cannot be used or exercised for satisfying private vendetta of a querulous person and the exercise of powers by the Magistrate under the aforesaid sections on the basis of incidents involving trivial quarrels without application of mind would amount to gross abuse of the process of law."
13. In Perswami Kandswami Devendra & Anr. vs. Sr. Inspector of Police, Mumbai & Ors., 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 251, the petitioners were father and son. They challenged show cause notice issued by SEM, Matunga, Mumbai under Section 111 of the Cr.PC for taking action under Section 107 of the Cr.PC. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held, as under:
"6. Domestic quarrels, petty quarrels between neighbouring persons which do not have long life are not the subject matters of the actions to be taken in view of Section 107 of the Code. The energy and time of public servant concerned should not be wasted in such trifling matters or for satisfying the personal vendetta or for the purpose of giving lessons to each other."
Whether there is credible information that the petitioner was likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity as required under Section 107 Cr.P.C.?
14. On perusal of record, it is seen that only material before Ld. SEM was the complaint filed by ASI Rishikesh Yadav and statement of ASI Rishikesh Yadav. In his statement, ASI Rishikesh Yadav stated that the petitioner, Inam Ali and Imrana made statements regarding marriage and property and for that reason, a cognizable offence can be committed. There was no material before Ld. SEM for making a prima facie opinion pertaining to apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance to public tranquillity.
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 8 of 12
15. If the petitioner, Inam Ali and his wife, namely, Imrana were making complaints against each other, it cannot be a ground for proceeding under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. In a country governed by rule of law, a person cannot be penalized for approaching the authorities for redressal of his grievances.
16. On perusal of the trial Court record, it is seen that the petitioner made a complaint on 10.09.2021 to PS Burari alleging marriage by concealment of identity, marital status, extortion and etc. Inam Ali also filed complaints against the petitioner for extortion and threats to falsely implicate in cases. It was the duty of the police to conduct enquiry / investigate the allegations made by the petitioner pertaining to solemnization of marriage by Imran by concealing his identity, religion and marital status. The police should have conducted enquiry into complaints made by Imran Ali and his wife, namely, Imrana. However, the police had abused its power by invoking Section 107/150 Cr.P.C. in the absence of any material disclosing apprehended breach of peace or disturbance to public tranquillity.
17. In the impugned order, Ld. SEM observed that dispute is relating to 'live in relationship' and 'maintenance'. There is no indication in the impugned order that the said disputes can cause any threat to public peace or disturbance to public tranquillity. There was no imminent threat to peace or disturbance to public tranquillity. It is relevant to note that the complaints filed by the petitioner, Inam Ali and his wife were related to the period anterior to 10.09.2021. However, he prepared kalandra after 11 days on 20.09.2021 and submitted to Ld. SEM on 29.09.2021. It shows that there was no need for any immediate measure.
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 9 of 12
18. Section 107 Cr.P.C. confers power upon the executive to take preventive action. It confers wide and unusual powers interfering with the liberty of the people. It must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. It is intended to deal with persons who are of desperate character and habitually disturb the public peace.
19. For invoking the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C., there must be strong material to satisfy the Magistrate that imminent breach of public peace is threatened and satisfaction regarding sufficiency of ground to proceed to prevent apprehended breach of public peace or disturbance to public tranquillity must be clear from the order.
20. In the absence of any credible information of apprehension of any breach of the peace or disturbance to public tranquillity, exercise of discretion by Ld. SEM under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is not only illegal but it is arbitrary and capricious and violative of Article 21 of 'The Constitution of India'.
21. If the petitioner and Inam Ali had any dispute pertaining to 'marital status' or 'maintenance', and they made complaints to police in that regard, they cannot be said to have caused breach of peace or disturbance to the public tranquillity.
22. This Court is of the considered opinion that Ld. SEM had no credible material for making prima facie opinion that the petitioner was likely to commit a breach of peace or disturbance to the public tranquillity.
23. Special Executive Magistrate passed impugned order mechanically and in the absence of any credible information pertaining to any threat to peace or public tranquillity. The impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 10 of 12 CONCLUSION:
24. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.
25. The proceedings under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. alongwith the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 are quashed.
26. A copy of the present order alongwith trial Court record be sent to the Court of Ld. SEM.
27. The criminal revision file be consigned to record Digitally signed room. SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.02.09 14:30:24 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 09th February, 2023 Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 11 of 12 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State CNR No.: DLCT01-014143-2021 Crl. Revision No. 196/2021 09.02.2023 Present : Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Vide separate order, the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The proceedings under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. alongwith the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 are quashed. The criminal revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2023.02.09
14:30:46 +0530
Sanjay Sharma-II
ASJ-03, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
NK 09.02.2023
Cr. Rev. No. 196/2021 Smt. Ranjeeta Dubey vs. State Page No. 12 of 12