[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.1932 OF 2007 Salman Nazir Ahmed Dalvi ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Sanjeev P.Kadam along with Mr.J.B.Choudhary advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.9.2007 passed in Chapter Case against him. The order has been passed by the Special Executive Magistrate-ACP Trombay against the petitioner under section 110(g) of the Cr.P.C. in Chapter Case No.13 of 2007 i.e. C.C. No.26 of 2007. 3. Section 110(g) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under: [-2-] . 110. Security for good behaviour from habitual 110. Security for good behaviour from habitual 110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders- offenders- offenders- When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who-- (g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, . such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit. 4. In the present case, it is seen that there was a dispute between the petitioner and his wife. On account of the matrimonial dispute, complaint came to be lodged by the wife of the petitioner against the petitioner and his relations. The said case is CR No.202 of 2006 of RCF Police station and it is under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 r.w. 34 of IPC. From the affidavit filed by the learned APP, [-3-] it is seen that during the course of investigation in CR No.202 of 2006, it was revealed that Mrs.Parveen who is the wife of the present petitioner and complainant’s brother Salim Ansari received a call on his mobile wherein some unknown person abused them in filthy language, hence, to avoid untoward incident as a preventive measure, chapter proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. It is seen that dispute is between the petitioner and the wife and it is a matrimonial dispute. Looking to the facts of the case the said dispute is not such that it can fall under section 110(g) of Cr.P.C. A matrimonial dispute of the present nature cannot be said to make the petitioner so desperate and dangerous so as to make the petitioner hazardous to the community, hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) viz:- (a) That the Order dated 12.9.2007 passed by learned Special Executive Magistrate, Trombay in CC No.26 of 2007 arising out of Chapter Proceeding No.13 of 2007, may kindly be set aside;" 5. Petition is disposed of accordingly. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]