Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 281 (PAT)

Sushil Singh v. State of Bihar

2006-03-30

body2006
ORDER This is an application for quashing the order dated 19.3.2005 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna in Case No. 224(M) of 2005 initiating a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the petitioners and directing them to appear in person in his court and show cause as to why they should not be ordered to exceute a bond of Rs. 5000/- with two sureties of like amount each to keep peace for a period of one year and also for quashing the subsequent proceeding of the case. 2. Heard. 3. It appears from the impugned order that a report was received by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate giving an-information that the members of the Opposite Party (Petitioners) are quarrel some persons and they are always abusing the first party (Opposite Party No. 2 of the application) in filthy languages and it is apprehended that they may commit some offence against the First Party (Opp. Party No.2) and all these caused great apprehension of breach of the peace at the hands of the members of this application. It further appears that on the above information the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for taking action against the petitioners and accordingly passed the impugned order. On the basis of the above order, a notice was also sent to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed against any of the petitioners and the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate without applying his mind initiated the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code against the petitioners. He further submitted that a Magistrate can initiate a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. only when the information is such as to satisfy him that a breach of the peace or disturbance is likely to take place in near future and it is this likelihood which gives him jurisdiction but in this case the allegations are vague and general in nature and do not at all show strong probability of a breach of the peace. 5. No body appeared during hearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 who is first party in the proceeding. Learned APP., however, defended the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate. 6. 5. No body appeared during hearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 who is first party in the proceeding. Learned APP., however, defended the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate. 6. In order to initiate a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code, what is required is that the information which is the foundation of the Magistrate's jurisdiction to act must relate to facts which show that a breach of the peace is imminent and may take place at any moment and not one likely to happen at some future time. The information should also not be vague and general. But I agree with the learned counsel that in this case the facts complained of are of general nature and were clearly insufficient to draw a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code against the petitioners. 7. In the result, this application is allowed. The entire proceeding including the impugned order is hereby quashed.