Patna High Court - Orders
Mahendra Yadav @ Upendra Yadav & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 29 April, 2011
Author: Kishore K. Mandal
Bench: Kishore K. Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.155 of 2008
1. MAHENDRA YADAV @ UPENDRA YADAV
2. KARE YADAV
BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE BANARSI YADAV
3. INDRAJEET KUMAR YADAV, SON OF KARE YADAV
4. CHANO YADAV
5. RAMANAND YADAV
BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE BANARSI YADAV
6. GAUTAM KUMAR @ SONU
7. MANISH KUMAR
8. RANBIR KUMAR @ TUTU YADAV
NOS. 6, 7 AND 8 ARE SONS OF MAHENDRA YADAV.
9. RANJEET YADAV, SON OF LATE KAPIL DEO YADAV
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHANKHATA, P.S.- GOGRI, DISTRICT-
KHAGARIA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. KUNDAN, SON OF LATE RAJESHWAR PRASAD YADAV, R/O-
VILLAGE- DHANKHETA, P.S.- GOGRI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA.
For the petitioners : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Hemendra, APP
-----------
3 29.04.2011Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the opposite party.
Petitioners are second party to the proceeding instituted under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). They are aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gogri in Case No. 540 M of 2005 whereby on a consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and the documents, it has been found that the members of the second party (petitioners herein) were likely to breach peace and thus directed them to execute bond for maintaining peace for a period of 01 years from the date of 2 execution of the bond. They are also aggrieved by the order passed on their appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 09 of 2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C. No. V, Khagaria dated 8th January, 2008 whereby the appeal stood dismissed.
With regard to an ugly scene created on the eve of Independence day which was being celebrated in the school in the year 2005, a station diary entry no. 83 of 2005 was registered based whereon a police report was submitted leading to initiation of proceeding under Section 107 of the Code. On notice, both the parties appeared and adduced evidence. On a consideration of materials on record, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by the impugned order found that there was apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of members of the second party and as such they were directed to execute bond for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of 01 year. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also stood rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order submits that there is no direct allegation of committing breach of peace at the hands of petitioners except petitioner No. 1. It is submitted that the plea of alibi advanced on behalf of the petitioners was not appropriately considered. It is next contended that in respect of an occurrence that had taken place on 15.8.2005, an F.I.R. was 3 lodged by members of 1st party against the present petitioners. The present petitioners had also lodged a Complaint case being Case No. 683C of 2005 against O.P. No. 2 (first party). It is submitted that both the aforesaid cases are pending trial. Learned counsel submits that continuance of present proceeding would be hit by principles of double jeopardy. It is also contended that the statutory period of 06 months was extended but without assigning any valid reasons therefor.
Learned counsel for opposite party submits that no issue in regard to such extension of period was raised by the petitioners. When the order went adverse to them then they are raising this grievance before this Court. It is next contended that the submission anchored on the principles of double jeopardy was considered by the learned Magistrate and negated on the ground that Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding is preventive not punitive in nature. No issue, therefore, can be raised on the ground of double jeopardy.
Learned Appellate Court reappraised the evidence on record and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate.
On hearing both the sides, this Court is satisfied that the orders impugned are not perverse and/or patently 4 illegal justifying interference on merit.
There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J) pkj