Bombay High Court Shri Perswami Kandswami Devendra -vs- Sr. Inspector Of Police, M.B. on 28 February, 2003
Equivalent citations:2003 BomCR Cri, 2003 (4) MhLj 703
Author: J Chitre
Bench: J Chitre
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. Heard. The petitioners who happen to be father and son are hereby assailing the propriety, legality and correctness of the show cause notice issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Matunga Region, Mumbai issued to them in view of provisions of Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code” for convenience) for taking the action in view of provisions of Section 107 of the Code.
2. The case revolves around a dispute between Anna Durai Perswami Devendra and his wife mainly. Perswami Kandswami, father of Anna Durai has come in picture as there has been an allegation against him that he was also illtreating his daughter-in-law. Both Anna Durai and Kandswami are facing a trial for committing an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC on the same allegation. In addition to that, it has been alleged in the said notice that on 10.1.1998 after getting released on bail both of them threatened the wife of Anna Durai that they would take the revenge as she filed a case against them in the Court.
3. Shri Naik submitted that the object of action to be taken in view of Section 107 and 111 of the Code is for preventing the breach of public peace and, therefore, private disputes do not come under the purview of both the sections.
4. Shri Saste submitted that the activities of both the Petitioners are endangering the public peace and, therefore, the learned Executive Magistrate has taken a right step to ask them to furnish the bonds of goods behaviour.
5. Section 107 if read plainly show that its object is to protect the public tranquillity and to prevent possibility of any disturbance to public peace. Therefore, there should be material before the Special Executive Magistrate to come to a conclusion that the person who is to be asked to furnish the bond is doing such activities which are reasonably dangerous to public peace and public tranquillity and that too directly. The material should show that the is having the associates and doing the exercise of muscle power or giving threats or engaging himself in anti-social activities which would result in out breaking of some incident which would disturb the public tranquillity and would cause the breach of public peace. Petty quarrels between individuals are very common in society. They are not long lasting and shortly forgotten after the heat of passion subsides and anger gets cooled down. Of course, the incidents cannot be overruled in which such quarrels would be having long lasting effect and would lead to deep rooted enmity between the concerned persons. But there has to be material to that effect. The cases of show of muscle power and show of the strength cannot be excluded because in those cases also there is possibility of breach of public peace and disturbance to public tranquillity. There should be material on record to show that way.
6. Domestic quarrels, petty quarrels between neighbouring persons which do not have long life are not the subject matters of the actions to be taken in view of Section 107 of the Code. The energy and time of public servant concerned should not be wasted in such trifling matters or for satisfying the personal vendetta or for the purpose of giving lessons to each other. This Court is supported by the view taken by the Single Judge Bench of this Court in two cases i.e. Smt. Christalin Costa and Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors., reported in 1993 (1) Bombay Law Reporter 688 and Madhu Deoraj Shetty v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1989 Cri. L.J. 1255.
7. Thus, the notice issued which is the subject matter of the present writ petition stands quashed. The petitioners need not appear before the said Special Executive Magistrate.