Judgment: A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. Considering that the petitions are being disposed at motion hearing, the notice to the respondent no.3 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 128 of 2012 is dispensed with. 3. With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. These two petitions are filed by three different persons whose names are as follows:- [1] Yusuf Khan Asif Ali Khan, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 126/12, [2] Irfan Khan Sharif Khan, Petitioner no.1 in Writ Petition No.128/12, and [3] Sharif Khan Asif Ali Khan, Petitioner No.2 in Writ Petition No. 128/12. 5. Based on separate Istegashas, different notices styled under Section 110 (e) of Criminal Procedure Code were issued and served on the petitioners who were already in jail and were due to be released. 6. The petitioners have prayed for reliefs, namely:- [a] Quashing of Istegashas. [b] Compensation for wrongful detention based on totally erroneous proceedings and in violation of law. 7. We had called for the reply and record. Reply and record both are received. 8. Heard both the sides. Perused the record. 9. In the midst of hearing, learned Adv. Mr. R.M. Patwardhan for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 128 of 2012, and learned Adv. Ms. Anuradha Gupta who is appointed for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 126 of 2012, state that the petitioners would feel content if the Istegashas are set aside and token compensation is granted. 10. Impugned notices are issued under Section 110 (e) of Criminal Procedure Code. Clause (e) of Section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows:- “[e] Habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or .....” 11. Thus, competent authority has to satisfy himself that the noticee is ‘habitual in committing’ or ‘attempting to commit’, or ‘abetting’ the offences ‘involving breach of peace.’ 12. Perusal of Istegas has reveals that even if every word contained therein is taken to be worthy of reliance, still the aspect of breach of peace does not emerge to any extent, whatsoever. 13. The notices, subject-matter, and consequent arrest and detention, thus, turn out to be without authority of law. Perusal of Istegas has reveals that even if every word contained therein is taken to be worthy of reliance, still the aspect of breach of peace does not emerge to any extent, whatsoever. 13. The notices, subject-matter, and consequent arrest and detention, thus, turn out to be without authority of law. Further detention on account of failure to furnish bail or failure to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the officer is a totally different matter. 14. Therefore, the Istegasha Nos.8,9 and 10 all of 2012 of Rajapeth Police Station, Amravati and notices based thereon deserve to be quashed and set aside, being issued without satisfying the ingredients of Section 110 (e) of Criminal Procedure Code and hence turn out to be issued without authority of law and are hereby set aside. 15. In so far as the detention is concerned, as noticed and found by us, it is wrongful. In the background that no personal malafides are attributed against respondent no.3 _ Police officer concerned [in Criminal Writ Petition No. 128 of 2012], who was acting in exercise of magisterial powers, he would not suffer personal liability, however, the State would certainly be liable to make over token compensation to the petitioners. 16. As we have held that the Istegashas, the notices as well the detention turn out to be wrongful, we quantify the token compensation to a sum of Rs.10,000-00 [rupees ten thousand only] for each petitioner. This amount be paid to each petitioner by Demand Drafts payable at a place of ordinary residence of the petitioner concerned, within sixty days from today by sending those Demand Drafts. 17. As the case pertains to the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Police, Amravati, the Commissioner of Police, Amravati, shall comply with this order. 18. We direct learned Addl. Public Prosecutor to communicate this order to the Commissioner of Police, Amravati, expeditiously. 19. We quantify the fee of the learned Adv. Ms. Anuradha Gupta appointed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 126 of 2012 at Rs.1500-00 [rupees fifteen hundred only]. 20. Rule is made absolute in terms of Para Nos. 14 to 17.