Delhi District Court
Inder Singh vs State on 31 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Cr. Revision No. 685/2019
INDER SINGH
S/o Shri NARAYAN SINGH
R/o H.No. 7, OLD CHANDRAWAL,
CIVIL LINES, DELHI
.....REVISIONIST
VERSUS
1. STATE
2. SANDEEP GUPTA
S/o Shri ASHARFI LAL
R/o 15/28, OLD CHANDRAWAL,
CIVIL LINES, DELHI 110054
.....RESPONDENTS
Date of filing:23.10.2019
First date before this court:24.10.2019
Date of arguments:29.01.2022
Date of Decision:31.01.2022
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this revision petition under Section 397 CrPC, the revisionist has assailed order/notice dated 10.10.2019 of the Special Executive Magistrate under Section 107/111 CrPC whereby the revisionist was directed to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate on 25.10.2019 and to show cause why he 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. The complainant defacto of the impugned proceedings was impleaded as respondent no. 2 herein but despite service of notice none appeared on his behalf across repeated Cr. Revision No 685/2019 Page 1 of 5 pages Inder Singh vs State & Anr. GIRISH KATHPALIA Date:
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA2022.01.31 18:50:37 +05'30' adjournments. I heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned prosecutor for State.
2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present revision petition are as follows. On 09.09.2019, the present respondent no. 2 visited PS Civil Lines and lodged a complaint before ASI Gulzar Hussen that his neighbor Inder Singh (the revisionist herein) was embroiled with him in property dispute by way of civil suit and regarding the same there were bickering between them. Thereafter, ASI Gulzar Hussen carried out inquires which revealed that both parties keep quarrelling with each other and keep harassing family of each other with false allegations and counter allegations due to which there is constant tension between the parties and there is an apprehension of either side committing some cognizable offence. ASI Gulzar Hussen submitted his report before the SHO Civil Lines who directed initiation of proceedings under Section 107/150 CrPC against both sides. On the kalandra under Section 107/150 CrPC being filed before the Special Executive Magistrate, the impugned order/notice was passed by the Special Executive Magistrate. Hence the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for revisionist argued that it is the revisionist who is victim of wrong doings of respondent no. 2, so the proceedings against the revisionist are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the impugned notice under Section 107/111 CrPC is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for revisionist took me through the original records of proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate.
4. As reflected from the original records of proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate, on 09.09.2019, GD No. 40 was Cr. Revision No 685/2019 Page 2 of 5 pages Inder Singh vs State & Anr. GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.01.31 18:50:19 +05'30' recorded at PS Civil Lines regarding a quarrel and the said GD entry was assigned to ASI Gulzar Hussen, who proceeded to the spot but on reaching the spot after about three hours, ASI Gulzar Hussen found no quarrel continuing and he met the revisionist Inder Singh, who complained that respondent no. 2 places his goods and also parks his scooter in the lane. After returning to the Police Station, ASI Gulzar Hussen recorded GD No. 50A, mentioning therein the complaint of the present revisionist and also further recorded that the revisionist throws garbage in the lane due to which the revisionist and the respondent no. 2 keep quarreling with each other and also file RTI applications against each other after lodging false complaints. ASI Gulzar Hussen further recorded in GD No. 50A that there is an apprehension that either side can commit breach of piece so a kalandra under Section 107/150 CrPC was being submitted in the court of Special Executive Magistrate.
5. Thus, it appears from record that since the revisionist and the respondent no. 2 are engaged in complaints and counter complaints related to private dispute, regarding which they are also embroiled in civil litigations, the local police opted to initiate proceedings against both of them under Section 107/150 CrPC.
6. It has been repeatedly held in various judicial precedents that proceedings under Section 107/150 CrPC cannot be initiated in private disputes between two individuals.
7. In the case of Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 1971 AIR 2486, the Hon'ble Supreme Court traversed through the legal position and held as under:
Cr. Revision No 685/2019 Page 3 of 5 pages
Inder Singh vs State & Anr. GIRISH KATHPALIA Date:
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
2022.01.31 18:50:01 +05'30'
"The gist of Sec.107 may now be given. It enables certain specified classes of Magistrates to make an order calling upon a 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 to fix. The condition of taking action is that the Magistrate is informed and he is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding that a 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. The Magistrate can proceed if the person is within his jurisdiction or the place of the apprehended breach of peace or disturbance is within the local limits of his jurisdiction. The section goes on to empower even a Magistrate not empowered to take action, to record his reason for acting, and then to order the arrest of the person (if not already in custody or before the court) with a view to sending him before a Magistrate empowered to deal with the case, together with a copy of his reasons. The Magistrate before whom such a person is sent may in his discretion detain such person in custody pending further action by him.
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."
8. In the case of Aarti Singh & Ajay Narain vs State & Others, 83 (2000) DLT 219, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dealt with circumstances similar to the present case, where in a private dispute between the petitioners, the local police initiated proceedings under Section 107/111 CrPC. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 107 CrPC against both petitioners, holding thus :
"5. The aforesaid statement of SI Hulas Giri clearly shows that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of the property bearing No. 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi and admittedly the petitioner Ajay Narain has already filed a Civil Suit against the petitioner Cr. Revision No 685/2019 Page 4 of 5 pages Inder Singh vs State & Anr. GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.01.31 18:49:42 +05'30' Smt. Arti Singh in respect of the said property. That being so, the members of the public were not affected by the alleged acts, action or conduct of the petitioners. The underlying object of the Section 107 Cr. P.C. is preventive and not penal (Ramnarain Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar). The sole object of initiating proceedings under Section 107 of the Code is to maintain public peace and tranquillity and cannot be used as a handle in case of a private dispute between individuals where there is no material of disturbance to public tranquillity or public peace. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was absolutely no justification for initiating proceedings under Section 107 of the Code against the petitioners. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed."
(emphasis supplied)
9. As described above, in the present case also the local police has resorted to proceedings under Section 107/150 CrPC against the revisionist, who is involved in a private civil dispute with the present respondent no. 2 merely for the reason that the revisionist and the respondent no.2 keep lodging complaints and counter-complaints against each other. In view of legal position described in details above, the proceedings under Section 107/150 CrPC are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
10. Therefore, the present revision petition is allowed and consequently the impugned order and notice dated 10.10.2019 under Section 107/111 CrPC is set aside. Original records of proceedings under Section 107/150 CrPC be sent back to the court of Special Executive Magistrate alongwith a copy of this judgment and file be consigned to records.
Announced through videoconferencing on this
31st day of January, 2022 GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2022.01.31 18:49:25 +05'30'
(GIRISH KATHPALIA)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQs)
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Cr. Revision No 685/2019 Page 5 of 5 pages
Inder Singh vs State & Anr.