Delhi District Court
Narender Kumar vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CA No.06/2014
Narender Kumar, S/o Sh. Pritam Singh,
R/o T15, Main Road, Near Mandir,
Village Tukmeerpur, Delhi - 94. .....Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of NCT of Delhi.
2. Pritam Singh, S/o Late Dal Chand,
R/o T15, Main Road, Near Mandir,
Village Tukmeerpur, Delhi -94. .....Respondents.
Date of arguments : 17.07.2014.
Date of judgment : 23.07.2014.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Narender Kumar for setting aside the order u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C dated 03.06.2014 passed by Ld. S.E.M. (North East District), Seelampur, Delhi in an Kalandra U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C titled as State Vs. Narender Kumar, DD No.60B dated 20.05.2014, whereby appellant was bound down for a period of six months in the sum of Rs.10,000/ for keeping peace and not to disturb the public tranquility.
2. SHO PS Khajoori Khas, Delhi had sent up a Kalendra U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C against Sh. Narender Kumar (appellant herein) CA No.06/2014 Page no.1 of pages 5 with the allegations that on 20.05.2014 on receipt of DD No.36 A, SI Shailender Kumar Singh alongwith Ct. Subodh reached at the spot i.e. H. No.T15, Main Road, Near Mandir, Village Tukmeerpur, Delhi, where many persons were collected/ gathered and loud noise of uttering filthy language (gali galauz) were coming from inside the gathering. SI alongwith the Ct. went there and found that one person was abusing an old man and was keen to manhandle with that old man. SI alongwith the Ct. overpowered the said person and on interrogation his name was revealed as Narender Kumar S/o Pritam Singh R/o above address and revealed that said person (Narender Kumar) was using abusing language and was keen to manhandle with that old man (Pritam Singh) for the rent and said house. SI tried to make Narender Kumar understand but he did not bother and thereafter, on the instructions of SHO (telephonically) Narender Kumar was arrested U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C and was produced before Ld. S.E.M (NE), Seelampur, Delhi on 21.05.2014 and Ld. S.E.M (NE), Seelampur, Delhi vide order dated 03.06.2014 bound down the appellant for a period of six months in the sum of Rs.10,000/ for keeping peace and not to disturb the public tranquility, which is being assailed by the appellant on various grounds as mentioned in the appeal itself.
3. I have carefully heard the rival submissions made before me. I have also perused the entire material placed on record particularly, the impugned order, record summoned from the Court of Ld. SEM(NE), contents of the appeal specially the grounds taken therein.
4. As per submissions of Ld. counsel for appellant in the present Kalandra, only the appellant was arrested and there was no second party or any complainant and Ld. S.E.M concerned has passed the impugned order in an arbitrary manner that too only on the basis of presumption. Appellant is CA No.06/2014 Page no.2 of pages 5 a layman and consequences of pleading of guilt was neither disclosed to the appellant nor it was stated by SI Shailender Singh to the appellant on 03.06.2014 to put his signature on summary trial register, that the proceedings has been concluded/finished against him. Ld. S.E.M did not consider the fact that there was no breach of peace on the alleged day i.e. on 20.05.2014 and the only family matter/civil dispute is pending between the appellant and respondent no.2 regarding the share of the family members in the property and no criminal offence or act were ever done by any of the family members towards each other.
Per contra, it is urged by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there is no irregularity or defect in the impugned order as the proceedings u/s 107/15 Cr. P. C are not an independent criminal offence, rather, these are the preventing proceedings to maintain public peace in the locality and it is not disputed that the litigation/disputes are going on in the family of the appellant with regard to property. Since the appellant was disturbing the public peace in the locality by raising loud noise of uttering filthy language (gali galauz) and was also keen to manhandle with that old man (i.e. his father) for the rent and share in house, so impugned order was passed rightly. The appellant was merely bound down to maintain public peace in the locality through the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr. P. C that too for the period of six months.
5. After giving due thought to the aforesaid submissions, I have come to the considered opinion that the revision petition as filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits as the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C are not an independent criminal offence, rather, these are the preventing proceedings to main and secure the peace and public tranquility in the locality. Since the appellant was disturbing the public peace in the locality by raising loud CA No.06/2014 Page no.3 of pages 5 noise of uttering filthy language (gali galauz) against his father and by the said act there was an apprehension of breach of peace in the vicinity, so the impugned order was passed and appellant was bound down to maintain public peace in the locality through the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the appellant had himself admitted his guilt before the Ld. SEM (NE) and pleaded guilty for the same, so the plea raised by the appellant that he is a layman and was unaware about the consequences of admission of guilt has no substance therein. Thus there is no force in the appeal and as such the same is hereby dismissed.
6. TCR (SEM Court record) alongwith the copy of judgment be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
7. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
court on 23rd July, 2014) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CA No.06/2014 Page no.4 of pages 5
CA No.06/2014
Narender Kumar Vs. The State & Anr.
23.07.2014
Present: As before.
Vide a separate judgment, appeal of the appellant stands dismissed.
TCR (SEM Court record) alongwith the copy of the judgment be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR)
ASJ02 (NE) : KKD : DELHI
23.07.2014
CA No.06/2014 Page no.5 of pages 5