Delhi District Court
Criminal Revision No. 34/07 1 Mewa Devi vs State on 28 March, 2007
Criminal Revision No. 34/07 1 Mewa Devi Vs State
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 34/07
Mewa Devi
W/o Late Sh. Kabir Singh
R/o near Railway Crossing
Village Bijwasan, New Delhi. .....Revisionist
Versus
The State (NCT of Delhi)
Through Ms Krishna Dwivedi
Special Executive Magistrate
South-West District,
New Delhi. .....Respondent
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 24.1.2007 passed by the Court of Ms Krishna Diwedi, Special Executive Magistrate whereby the revisionist was directed to furnish interim bond under Section 116(3) CrPC in a case State Vs. Mewa Devi, under Section 107/150 CrPC, PS Kapashera, New Delhi. Criminal Revision No. 34/07 2 Mewa Devi Vs State
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that Smt. Phoolwati W/o Late Sh. Chandi Ram R/o near Railway crossing V & PO Bijwasan, New Delhi is the real mother of the deceased husband of the revisionist. In other words the complainant is the mother in law of the revisionist. As per the kalandara, Late Sh. Kabir Singh, the son of the complainant and the husband of the revisionist had died in an accident and thereafter the relations between the complainant and the revisionist became strained. It is alleged that a civil suit between the two parties is pending in a civil court. Both the parties are also contesting their share in the compensation in MACT. Complainant alleges that the revisionist lives separately with her children but she puts a cot in the way meant for ingress and egress to the residence of the complainant and thereby causes obstructions in the way of complainant. It is alleged that when complainant Smt. Phoolwati objects to it, the revisionist hurls abuses upon her and also threatens to kill Criminal Revision No. 34/07 3 Mewa Devi Vs State her. In view of this complaint, the police preferred a kalandara under Section 107/150 CrPC vide DD No. 17B dated 5.11.2006 apprehending the breach of peace.
3. The Special Executive Magistrate passed a preliminary order dated 12.11.2006 which is reproduced as under:-
ORDER SHO Kapashera has sent this kalandra u/s 107.150 Cr.P.C. against the above respondents. I have carefully gone through the police report and the statement of IO SI Nanak Chand, it is revealed that the above respondents has been picking up frequent quarrels with Smt. Phool Wati over property dispute. I have come to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further against the above respondents. I, therefore, order that notice u/s 111 Cr.P.C. Be sent to the above respondents asking them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety each in the like amount for keeping peace u/s 116 (3) Cr.P.C. during the pendency of these proceedings. Issue summons and notice u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. against the above respondents for appearance on 26.11.06.
4. The revisionist appeared on 26.11.2006 and thereafter filed a reply to the show cause notice on 24.1.2007. After considering the material on record, the Special Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order which is reproduced as under :-
24.1.2007 Respondent is present along with counsel. Other party also present along with counsel. From Criminal Revision No. 34/07 4 Mewa Devi Vs State the contents of kalandara reply filed, it is revealed that the dispute between the parties is regarding property and there is an imminent apprehension of breach of peace & tranquility in the area from the conduct of respondent I do feel that immediate measures are necessary to keep peace & tranquility in the area hence I hereby bound down the respondent u/s 116(3) CrPC to keep peace with a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
and surety in the like amount and during the proceedings in this court. To come up on 14.2.07 for further furnishing the required bond.
SEM/Dwarka 24/1/07
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has referred to many authorities referred to below and it has been argued that in these authorities it has been held that where there is a property dispute, the parties to it cannot be proceeded under Section 107 CrPC.
6. I have carefully considered all those authorities. I am of the opinion that in all these cases there was simply a property dispute between the parties and there was no material to show that there was imminent apprehension of breach of peace and tranquility. In the present case Criminal Revision No. 34/07 5 Mewa Devi Vs State however the facts are different. Although there is a property dispute between the parties but the breach of peace and public tranquility is likely to be caused because of putting a cot by the revisionist in the way of the complainant.
7. In 1970(3) Supreme Court Cases 746 Madhu Limaye Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and Others, the Supreme Court has discussed in detail the purpose and extent of section 107 CrPC. In fact this judgement is a complete thesis on the procedure and jurisprudence of preventive laws led down in CrPC. I reproduce para 46 of this judgement which would be relevant to understand the meaning of public tranquility :
46. The gist of the Chapter is the prevention of crimes and disturbance of public tranquility and breaches of the peace.
There is no need to prove overt acts although if overt acts have taken place they will have to be considered.
Criminal Revision No. 34/07 6 Mewa Devi Vs State The action being preventive is not based on overt act but on the potential danger to be averted. These provision are thus essentially conceived in the interest of public order in the sense defined by us. They are also in the interest of the general public. If prevention of crimes, and breaches of peace and disturbance of public tranquility are directed to the maintenance of the even tempo of community life, there can be no doubt that they are in the interest of public order. As we have shown above 'pubic order' is an elastic expression which takes within its various meanings according to the context of the law and the existence of special circumstances. This power was used in England for over 400 years and is not something which is needed only for administration of colonial empires. Its need in our society today is as great as it was before the British left.
8. The order dated 12.11.2006 (reproduced above) shows that the Special Executive Magistrate has duly applied her Criminal Revision No. 34/07 7 Mewa Devi Vs State mind on the information received by her by way of kalandara. The contents of kalandara also clearly show that it was a fit case for proceedings under Section 107 CrPC as the conduct of revisionist in putting a cot and thereby obstructing the way of complainant and abusing her is "a wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of peace". These words occurring in section 107 CrPC make the ambit of the preventive action very wide. Therefore I am of the opinion that even if there is a property dispute between the parties, the Special Executive Magistrate is not prevented from proceeding against a person under Secton 107 CrPC provided there is material on record to show that there was likelihood of breach of peace.
9. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has referred to following authorities in his support :-
(1) 2000[2] JCC [Delhi] 347.
(2) 1989(1) Crimes 581 Orissa High Court.
(3) IV (1998) CCR 95 Patna High Court.
Criminal Revision No. 34/07 8 Mewa Devi Vs State
(4) 1976 C. L. R. (Pb. & Har.)
I have considered all facts and circumstances of the referred case law. Facts of the cases cited by Ld. Counsel for revisionist are different from the present case. Briefly stated in the above stated judgements, the High Courts quashed the proceedings in those cases only where there was simply a property dispute and there was no material to show the likelihood of breach of peace and instead of applying his mind on the information received, the Magistrate proceeded without applying his mind in a mechanical manner. However in the present case the Special Executive Magistrate has applied his mind on every stage of the proceedings. The facts show that conduct of the revisionist is causing breach of peace. Moreover the Special Executive Magistrate also gave an opportunity to file a reply to the revisionist which was considered by her in the impugned order. Criminal Revision No. 34/07 9 Mewa Devi Vs State
10. In view of above discussion and well settled law in Madhu Limayes case, I do not find any substance in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for revisionist that Ld. SEM fell in error in proceedings under Section 107 CrPC and passing an order under Section 116(3) CrPC. Therefore I do not find any substance in the revision petition. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. Copy of order along with trial court record be returned back to the trial court. The revisionist shall appear before the court of Special Executive Magistrate, Dwarka at 2:00 PM on 30.3.2007and furnish the requisite bonds.
11. The revision file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on 28.3.2007.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi