Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(3) Statements of Mohan Lal, Chander Kanta and of the complainant were recorded on July 22, 1989 by the police and a kalandra dated July 22, 1989 was put in before the Special Executive Magistrate for taking action against Hari Ram and Tavinder under Sections 107/150, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(4) The file of the case shows that a cyclostyled proforma stood filled in without any date or signatures of the learned Magistrate which I reproduce below: "IN the Court of Shri R. Kumar, Sem, West Distt. State Versus Hari Ram S/o Lal Chand Under Section : 107/150 Ipc Police Station : Tilak Nagar Order Sho Tilak Nagar has sent this kalandra under Sections 107/150 Cr. P.C. against the above respondent(s) who is/are present in custody. I have gone through the kalandra other facts and I have come to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents. I, therefore, order that Notice under Section 111 Criminal Procedure Code . be issued to the respondents asking him/them to show cause why be/they are aot ordered to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3.000.00 with one surety/two sureties in the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year Notice(s) have been read over to the respondents in vernacular who have not admitted the contents of the same and claim to be trial. After going through the police report bearing the parties respondent(s) and considering the statement of the Io Public Witness 1. I ato satisfied the immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of breach of peace of the commission of any offence pendents of the proceedings. I, therefore, order the respondent(s) under Section 116(3) Code of Criminal Procedure to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for keeping peace until the conclusion of the proceedings that be/ the shall be detailed in judicial custody under the said bond executed. Case to come on.................. Special Executive MAGISTRTE. West District, DELHI" I also find that cyclostyled notice under Section 111 of the Code Criminal Procedure which also are undated and unsigned stood filled in and arc lying in the file. One of the notices is in the following terms : In The Court of Shri R. Kumar Sem. West Distt. Delhi. Notice U/s 111 Criminal Procedure Code . Whereas it has been to appear by credible information and from the report of the Ic, Tilak Nagar Police Station that you Tavinder Kumar, son of Hari Ram, R/o 5139, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi was threatening to Rani at Tilak Nagar and that you are likely to do a wrongful act which may result in the breach of peace within the local limit of my jurisdiction and since. I am satisfied from police report that there are sufficient grounds for taking proceedings against you. I. R. Kumar S.E.M. West District, Delhi do hereby require to whom why you should not be ordered to execute a personal bond with one surety in the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 for keeping peace for a period of one year."

(5) The file also shows that summons had been issued to the petitioners for appearance for the said two dates and Along with summons, signed notices of the Executive Magistrate under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also are there on which no reports have been made. On the summons it has been recorded that no personal service has been effected on the respondents.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the learned S.D.M. bad not at all cared to apply his mind to the facts mentioned in the kalandra or in the statements accompanying the kalandra and bad already got filled in proforma to serve them on petitioners as soon as petitioners were to appear before him. There is a lot of force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners because the question of flaking any immediate measures against the petitioners could arise only after the petitioners had appeared and the Magistrate was to be satisfied that some, immediate measures arc required to be taken and for that purpose any bond was required to be obtained from the petitioners under Section 116(3) or not. But the file shows that the learned Executive Magistrate had already made up his mind to require the petitioners to execute bonds as an immediate necessary measure under Section 116(3) of the Code. The learned' Executive Magistrate bad not recorded his satisfaction with regard to the facts as to whether there exists any apprehension of breach of peace at the: hands of the petitioners before directing the issuance of Notices to the petitioners. Even in the notices prepared under Section 111 of the Code the substance of the allegations against the petitioners is not incorporated and only a vague fact has been mentioned in the notice that petitioner have been threatening the complainant at Tilak Nagar. Nothing has been mentioned' as to when such threats have been held out by the petitioners. So a substance of the allegations made in the kalandra are not indicated in the aforesaid Notices.

(15) In Moosa Mohammed v. Amin 1967 Cri. L.J. 1330 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had considered similar provisions and bad held that the notice should contain definite particulars and not vague recitals of the words of the section before such a notice can be sustained.

(16) So, in the present case I find that the Executive Magistrate concerned had acted mechanically in directing issuance of summons and notice to the petitioners without applying his mind to the facts appearing in the kalandra and the statements submitted along with the kalandra. It was a legal duty cast on the Executive Magistrate to have applied his mind the facts and he should have recorded die order as contemplated by Section 107 and 111 of the Code before directing for issuance of summons and the notices under Sections 111 and 113 of the Code to the petitioners. The learned Executive Magistrate appears to have already made up his mind to lake immediate measures against the petitioners even before the stage for commencement of the inquiry bad arrived as required, by Section 116(3) of the Code.

(17) Hence I allow the petition and quash the proceedings commenced. from the first order of the learned S.D.M. made on the kalandra. It would be appropriate that the matter is transferred to some other Executive Magistrate for dealing with this kalandra. I direct the Police Commissioner to entrust this case to some other Executive Magistrate who shall then proceed with the kalandra inaccordance with the law in the light of the observations made above in this judgment.