Delhi District Court
Gajey Singh vs State on 26 March, 2011
: 1 :
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. KAUSHIK
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02
DISTRICT COURTS DWARKA ; NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.: 38/2011
Date of Institution: 14.03.2011
Date on which Judgment Pronounced: 26.03.2011
DD No. 28-B
P.S.Jaffarpur Kalan
U/s. 107/150 Cr.P.C.
In the matter of:-
1. Gajey Singh
Son of Naval Singh
2. Surender @ Pappu
Son of Sh. Ajmer Singh
3. Sandeep
Son of Sh. Kuldeep
4. Kuldeep
Son of Sh. Ran Singh
All R/o Post Office Mundhela Khurd, Delhi.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. State
..... Respondent
ORDER
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 26.02.2011, passed by the Executive Magistrate, whereby the revisionists were asked by Crl. Rev. 38/2011 (DD No.28B) Gajey Singh & Others Vs. State page 6 of 1 : 2 : the Executive Magistrate, to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with surety in the like amount, in the case titled as Gajay Singh & others.
2. It is asserted that DD entry No. 28-B dated 22.07.2010 under section 107/150 Cr.PC was recorded in Police Station Jaffarpur Kalan. That subsequently, the impugned order was passed by the Executive Magistrate, South West District, New Delhi.
3. It is alleged by the revisionists that there are many criminal and civil cases pending trial in various courts in Delhi against the son and daughter in law of Kartar Singh, the complainant, on whose statement the action in this case was originated.
4. That the revisionists herein are either the complainant or witnesses in those cases. That the present kalandara was instituted by pressurising the police officials by Mehender Singh, who then was working as SI in Delhi Police and is the son of the complainant Kartar Singh and the brother of Ranbir Singh Kharab, Ex-MLA, against whom the aforesaid litigations are pending.
Crl. Rev. 38/2011 (DD No.28B) Gajey Singh & Others Vs. State page 6 of 2 : 3 :
5. That there is no apprehension of breach of peace as is alleged in the kalandara. That there was no material placed on record before the said Executive Magistrate. That the parties are the residents of the same village. That there were no quarrels or threats having been issued by the revisionists. That the complainant having influence politically and in the police brought false action against the revisionists. That the present complaint was an abuse of the process of law, just to mount pressure and to settle score of other disputes pending between the parties.
6. The contentions raised on behalf of the revisionists have been opposed by the State and it is stated that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. That the revision has no merit, and be hereby, dismissed.
7. I have carefully gone through the entire relevant material appearing on record including the record of the Executive Magistrate.
8. A bare perusal of the impugned order, under attack, in this revision and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate and especially of the complainant Kartar Singh, Crl. Rev. 38/2011 (DD No.28B) Gajey Singh & Others Vs. State page 6 of 3 : 4 : clearly reveal that there was no material available with the Special Executive Magistrate to have passed the impugned order.
9. Kartar Singh, in his examination in chief has spoken of some abuses and threats and that the revisionists alongwith others had shown him the revolver/arms. In cross-examination, he, however, somersaulted and deposed that nobody had shown him the revolver or any other weapon.
10. From the material available on record, it is very easy to infer that just for the sake of involving the revisionists in some proceeding, the process of law has been abused.
11. It is well settled that the underlying object of section 107 Cr.P.C. is preventive and not penal. It is also well settled that the provision of section 107 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as handle in case of private dispute between individuals, where there is no material to show disturbance to public tranquility. That no justification for initiating proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. exists, in such cases. (Smt. Aarti Singh & Anr. Vs. State & Others 83 (2000) Delhi Law Times 219 is relied upon).
Crl. Rev. 38/2011 (DD No.28B) Gajey Singh & Others Vs. State page 6 of 4 : 5 :
12. It has been held in the case law reported as Indravadan Killawalla and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 1988, 1989 CRI. L.J. 1253, that threats and abuses does not attract section 107 Cr.P.C.
13. Further, in the case law reported as 2009 IX AD (Delhi) 462, where notice was issued based upon allegation of kalandara without any cogent reasons, the notice was held to be bad and was quashed.
14. In the case law reported as 1989 CRI.L.J. 1253 Bombay High Court it was held that, "when reports given in the police station 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 Cr.P.C."
15. In the instant case, there was no cogent material made available to the Executive Magistrate to arrive at a decision that there was actual threat to peace and tranquility because of any occurrence attributable to the revisionist herein.
Crl. Rev. 38/2011 (DD No.28B) Gajey Singh & Others Vs. State page 6 of 5 : 6 :
16. It was not proper to pass the impugned order just to indicate to the public that the opposite party could successfully use the provision contained in section 107 Cr.P.C. for arm twisting of the respondents with whom they are interlocked in several litigations of civil and criminal nature.
17. Thus, I find no merit in the impugned order passed by the Special Executive Magistrate. The same is required to be quashed, and is hereby, quashed.
18. The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed.
19. A copy of the order be sent to the Special Executive Magistrate, alongwith trial court record, if any, forthwith.
20. Revision file be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26th day of March, 2011 (N. K. KAUSHIK) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 02 DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI/26.03.2011 Crl. Rev. 38/2011 (DD No.28B) Gajey Singh & Others Vs. State page 6 of 6