Delhi District Court
Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI03
(PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision no.04/16
UID No.02406R0030912016
1. Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj
s/o Late Sh. R.N. Bhardwaj
r/o 18D MIG Sheikh SaraiI
New Delhi.
2. J. S Gill
s/o Late Sh. Joginder Singh
r/o 10A, MIG Flats,
Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi
3. S. Ramachandran
s/o V. Sundereshan
r/o 45 A, MIG Flats,
Sheikh SaraiI, New Delhi.
4. Ramesh Aggarwal
s/o Balram
r/o 36 A, MIG Flats,
Sheikh SaraiI, New Delhi
..........Revisionists
Vs.
1. State of NCT of Delhi
2. Nirupama Dutta
r/o 45 C, MIG Flas
Sheikh SaraiI, New Delhi.
3. Special Executive Magistrate
South District, New Delhi ....... Respondents
CR No.04/16 11.03.2016 Page no. 1/6
Date of filing of revision : 23.01.2016
Date of allocation : 25.01.2016
Arguments concluded on : 10.03.2016
Date of order : 11.03.2016
Criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC for setting
aside the issuance of summons dated 02.09.2015 issued by the
ld. Special Executive Magistrate u/s 107/111 Cr.PC in DD no.23
B and for setting aside the kalandra dated 17.08.2015 issued by
the ld. Special Executive Magistrate u/s 107/150 Cr.PC in DD
no.23 B as the same is illegal, improper and bad in law.
ORDER
1. By way of present revision petition, notice u/s 107/111 Cr.P.C. issued to the revisionist by the Ld. Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) has been challenged on the ground that the notice does not give any details of the matter and the recitals of the section are vague. The notices have been issued on the basis of wrong appreciation of facts and the Court of Ld. SEM has failed to appreciate that it is the 2nd party who has been harassing the revisionists 1st party who are all senior citizens. Further, the notices have been issued in a mechanical manner without following the mandate of law as laid down in Asha Pant Vs. State & ors., 2008 (2) JCC
984. It is averred that the proceedings u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a handle in case of private dispute between CR No.04/16 11.03.2016 Page no. 2/6 the individuals where there is no material referring to disturbance of public tranquility or public peace. It has been pointed out that in Madhu Limaye & Another Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, AIR 1971 SC 2486, it has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope of section 107 Cr.PC that this provision is aimed at persons who cause a reasonable apprehension of conduct likely to lead to a breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility. It is submitted that the circumstances of the case do not warrant invocation of section 107 Cr.PC. It has also been pointed out that Ld. SEM did not deem it necessary to record the statement of any person during the course of inquiry before proceeding to issue impugned notices to the revisionists.
2. Revision petition has been vehemently opposed by the State.
3. I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the record carefully including the record of file no.183/15 related to the revisionists 1st party and file no. 184/15 related to 2nd party in respect of DD no.23 B dated 17.08.2015, PS Malviya Nagar pending before the Court of Ld. SEM.
4. The dispute between the two RWAs of MIG, DDA flats, Sheikh Sarai, PhaseI, New Delhi is at the core of the matter under consideration. It is noted that the revisionists 1 st party in the kalandra are the office bearers of old RWA and 2nd CR No.04/16 11.03.2016 Page no. 3/6 party constitute office bearers of the new RWA.
5. Section 107 (1) Cr.P.C. provides as follows:
"107 Security for keeping the peace in other cases(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such 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".
The phrase 'is of opinion' requires consideration. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists1st party has argued that this phrase means that the Ld. SEM should have first conducted a preliminary inquiry to satisfy himself that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding before issuing notices U/Sec 107/111 Cr.P.C.
6. Perusal of record shows that when the kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.P.C, PSMalviya Nagar was received by the Court of Ld. SEM, South District, he recorded the statement of IO on the same day and went through the police report. Police report includes documents annexed with it which include the copies of complaints of 1st party as well as copies of complaints of CR No.04/16 11.03.2016 Page no. 4/6 the 2nd. In the proceeding sheet dated 02.09.2015, the ld. SEM has categorically observed " I have carefully gone through the police report as well as statement of IO and come to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against him/them".
7. The perusal of the copies of the complaints filed at PS Malviya Nagar by both the parties against each other prima facie point towards existence of palpable tension between the two rival RWAs of MIG DDA flats, Sheikh Sarai, PhaseI, New Delhi110017. It is, thus, clear that Ld. SEM did not issue the notices mechanically but he satisfied himself by considering the police report alongwith the statement of IO recorded by him as well as the complaints of the rival parties i.e 1st party and 2nd party. It was upon such satisfaction that the notices were issued.
8. In the notices u/s 107/111 Cr.PC, Ld. SEM has categorically mentioned the dispute between the two RWAs and that threats have been extended by 1st party and the 2nd party. The notices, therefore, are not vague and clearly convey reasons for which the two parties have been summoned by Ld. SEM.
9. The proceeding sheets also show that opportunity has been granted to the revisionists1st party to file their reply and the CR No.04/16 11.03.2016 Page no. 5/6 protest of respondent no.3 Inder Prakash Singh of 1 st party regarding erroneous inclusion of his name in the kalandra has also been recorded by the Ld. SEM. Sh. Inder Prakash Singh is, however, not the revisionist in the present case.
10. The averments of the revisionists regarding the facts of the case and whether or not they should be required to execute bond u/s 111 Cr.P.C constitute the subject matter before the SEM and shall be considered by him as per law. So far as the issuance of the notices u/s 107/111 Cr.PC against the revisionists is concerned, there is no illegality or infirmity in the same.
11. In view of above discussion, revision petition is dismissed.
12. File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 th DAY OF MARCH, 2016.
(Vrinda Kumari)
ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act)
(CBI3), South, Saket Court
New Delhi
CR No.04/16 11.03.2016 Page no. 6/6