Delhi District Court
Smt. Ram Piary W/O Sh. Rati Ram vs The State on 7 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITA RAO, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE01, NORTH, DELHI.
Crl. Revision No. 151/2011
File No. : 19/11
P.S. : Civil Lines
DD No. : 23PP Dated 04.09.2011
U/s: 107/150 of Cr.P.C.
Case ID No.: 02401R0511902011
Concerned Court/Successor Court:
Sh. Raghubir Prasad, SEM, North, P.S. Sarai Rohilla, Delhi
In the matter of:
1. Smt. Ram Piary W/o Sh. Rati Ram
2. Sh. Sandeep S/o Sh. Rati Ram
3. Sh. Kuldeep S/o Sh. Rati Ram
All R/o
16/64A, Old Chandrawal,
Civil Lines, Delhi 54
........Petitioners
Vs.
The State
..............Respondent
Date of Filing : 05.11.2011
Date of Arguments : 07.01.2012
Date of Order: 07.01.2012
O R D E R
1. This is a revision petition filed on behalf of all the petitioners Crl. Rev. No. 151/2011 1/4 aggrieved by the order of Ld. Special Executive Magistrate whereby notices u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. was issued upon the petitioners on the allegations that they have inimical terms with Satish & Ors which is the other party, on issue of property and that the petitioners have also threatened the other party for dire consequences and likely to cause breach of peace with further allegations that there is very serious tension between the petitioners and other party and are likely to do a wrongful act which may result in breach of peace within the local limit of jurisdiction of Ld. SEM based upon which and the report through SHO, Ld. SEM concluded that there are sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings against the petitioners.
2. Challenge to the impugned order has been made on the ground that notices U/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. do not contain the substance of information against the petitioners and only vague and general facts have been mentioned, therefore, the notices as issued based upon the general allegations is not in consonance with the well established provisions of law. It is also argued that the powers vested in Executive Magistrate have to be exercised only in cases of serious nature and not in cases involving trivial quarrels, since the proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. and 150 Cr.P.C. are of preventive nature and impinge upon the liberty of an individual which is of paramount importance and value and fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution, it is thus the imperative duty of the court seized of such proceedings to see that all the relevant provision of law touching those proceedings are strictly complied with and the liberty of the citizens is not allowed to be jeopardized on frivolous and baseless allegations. Crl. Rev. No. 151/2011 2/4
3. I agree with the contention of petitioner no. 2 who has argued on the revision petition himself that only general and vague allegations have been mentioned in the notices without any specific instances which may lead to the conclusion that the petitioners were likely to do any wrongful act which may occasion breach of peace or which may disturb public tranquility. It was also submitted that the civil case pertaining to the said property is also pending. Even the perusal of record reveals that it was basically the dispute between two private parties which led Ld. SEM to conclude with respect to infringement of public peace. Reliance is placed upon 1996 JCC 495 Ram Prakash & Anr. Vs. State and upon 1989 Crl. J. 1253 Indravadan Killawalla & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. wherein interalia it was observed that " where the reports with respect to the allegations against the parties were of trifling incidents and more in the nature of trial of nerves between two parties determined to get at each other's throats, to check this sort of behaviour is not the object of section 107 of Cr.P.C. . Two individuals have nothing to do with public tranquility or breach of peace which dispute is purely of civil nature." Both the abovesaid authorities are squarely applicable on the facts of instant case as well.
4. I also agree with the contention of the petitioners that the Magistrate is to state grounds sufficient for his forming the opinion which has also not been done in the instant matter while placing reliance upon Crl. Rev. no. 432 of 1972 Dhani Ram Vs. State, Crl. Misc. No. 4416M of Crl. Rev. No. 151/2011 3/4 1984 Mukandi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. and upon 1990 Crl. L. J. 40 Tavinder Kumar & another Vs. State wherein interalia it was observed that " the Executive Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the facts as to whether there exists any apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of parties before directing the issuance of notices upon them. Even in the notices prepared u/s 111 Cr.P.C. the substance of such allegations against them is required to be incorporated which must not be the vague facts". In the instant matter also as already observed, only the vague and general allegations have been leveled against the petitioners and the case of petitioners also squarely falls in the same category as is described by their Lordships in abovesaid authorities wherein Ld. SEM has not followed the provisions of law, the notices u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. seems to have been issued without any justification for initiating proceedings against the petitioners, hence cannot be sustained. Accordingly revision petition is allowed. The order for issuance of notices against the petitioners is set aside and they are discharged. TCR alongwith copy of this order be sent to the trial court. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(SAVITA RAO) Additional Sessions Judge01 (North) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Announced in the open court on 07.01.2012 Crl. Rev. No. 151/2011 4/4