Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By the present order, I shall dispose of the revision filed by the revisionists U/S 397 CrPC against the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court dated 22.06.10. Vide the said order, Ld. Special Executive Magistrate issued notices U/S 107/111 CrPC to the revisionists asking them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each for keeping peace for a period of one year.

2 The case of revisionists is that vide DD No. 66B dated 05.05.10, the police of P.S Sadar Bazar prepared a Kalandra U/S 107/150 CrPC against revisionists and filed the same in the court of Sh. Raghubir Prasad, Ld. Special Executive Magistrate P.S. Sarai Rohilla; that the police of P.S. Sadar Bazar is hand in gloves with respondents No. 2 to 8 and had registered false Kalandara against the revisionists with the allegations that revisionists abused and threatened the respondents and thereby caused breach of peace; that revisionists are law abiding and peace loving citizens; that respondents No. 2 to 8 are maintaining strained and enimical relations with the revisionists; that respondents No. 2 to 5 are real brothers and are nephews of revisionist No. 1; that respondent No. 6 is the brother-in-law of revisionist No. 1; that earlier a Kalandra U/S 107/151 CrPC was registered in P.S. Sarai Rohilla and was listed before Ld. Special Executive Magistrate on 29.12.08, where revisionist No. 1 as well as respondents No. 2, 3 and 6 with others appeared; that after attending that Kalandara, the sisters of revisionist No.1 [revisionists No. 4 and 6] took him to their ancestral property No. 6056, Gali Haiderwali, Qasabpura, Sadar Bazar; that respondent No. 2, 3 and 6 forcibly entered the room of that house with knives and iron rods and threatened revisionists No. 1, 4 and 6; that they started beating revisionist No. 1, due to which he [revisionist No. 1] had fallen and became unconscious; that revisionists No. 4 and 6 tried to save revisionist No. 1 and raised hue and cry for help; that thereafter, respondents No. 2, 3 and 6 left away, giving threats, to eliminate the revisionist No. 1 and his family members; that revisionist No. 1 was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, where he was treated; that police of P.S. Sadar Bazar assured revisionist No. 1 to register a case of attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt, against respondents but police failed to take any action and therefore, revisionists filed a complaint case U/S 307 /326/341/452/506/120B/34 IPC, which is pending in the court of Ld. Magistrate; that in order to avoid any legal action in the said complaint, respondents No. 2 to 8 hatched a conspiracy with the police and got registered a false and fabricated FIR No. 60/10 on 06.05.10 U/S 323/341/34 IPC against revisionists No. 1 to 3 at P.S. Bara Hindu Rao; that police of P.S. Sadar Bazar at the instance and collusion with respondents No. 2 to 8 also got registered a false and fabricated Kalandara against the revisionists wherein Ld. Special Executive Magistrate issued notices U/S107/151 CrPC to the revisionists.

8 In Asha Pant V. State and Ors. 2008 [2] JCC 984 also, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court quashed the notices issued U/S 107/111 CrPC issued by Special Executive Magistrate in Kalandara. It was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court:

"In every case, it would be incumbent upon the SEM to follow the steps envisaged in section 107 strictly in accordance with the procedure outlined in the provisions of the CrPC set out thereafter. Such steps should be preceded by the formation of an opinion in writing by a Magistrate which should be discernable when the decision is challenged in the Court. Such formation of the opinion should, normally, be based on some preliminary enquiry that should be made by an SEM to justify the formation of an opinion. Of course, this cannot be straitjacketed since there may be cases, where an SEM may form an opinion rightaway to prevent the breach of peace or public tranquility. However, that should be the exception and not the rule. For instance, as in the present case, where the dispute is essentially between the neighbours in a property, or between a landlord and tenant residing in the same premises, the notice under section 107 CrPC should not be issued only upon a perusal of the Kalandara prepared by the police. Such a mechanical exercise without the SEM forming an independent opinion on the basis of some sort of a preliminary enquiry would render the exercise of the power vulnerable to being invalidated".

"The underlying object of the Section 107 CrPC is preventive and not penal. The sole object of initiating proceedings under Section 107 of the Code is to maintain public peace and tranquility and cannot be used as a handle in case of a private dispute between individuals, where there is no material of disturbance to public tranquility 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 initiated against the petitioners. Consequently, the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed".

10 In the present case, after perusal of Trial Court Record, it becomes crystal clear that the dispute between the revisionists and respondents was in respect of property No. 6056, Gali Haiderwali, Qasabpura, Sadar Bazar and SHO, Sadar Bazar. On the basis of DD No. 66B dated 05.05.10 police filed two Kalandaras before Ld. Special Executive Magistrate U/S 107/150 CrPC. One Kalandara was against the revisionists and the second Kalandara was against the respondents. 11 A perusal of notices issued to the revisionists shows that they have been issued on the basis of report only of SHO,Sadar Bazar. The same do not even make mention of statement of SI Sevak Ram recorded on 22.06.10. Trial Court Record further shows that the notices U/S 107/111 CrPC have been issued by Ld. Special Executive Magistrate on cyclostyled proformas and the relevant information, received from SHO, has been filled in hand in the blanks, left in the cyclostyled proforma. I am of the considered view that the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court discussed above, are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Since, the dispute between revisionists and respondents was in respect of property No. 6056, Gali Haiderwali, Qasabpura, Sadar Bazar, I am of the considered view that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility by the acts of revisionists. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.06.10 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside.