Criminal Misc.M.No.38988 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. M-No.38988 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 22, 2011 Labh Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Hari Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM; HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 4. Present: Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioners. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioners have knocked the door of this Court by the present petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C assailing order dated 1.2.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nabha summoning the petitioners under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Respondents herein have moved an application on 1.2.2011 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nabha under Sections 107 and 150 Cr.P.C Police Chowki, Village Chheentanwala, Police Station Sadar, Nabha. On the same day, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed Criminal Misc.M.No.38988 of 2011 2 the impugned order, which reads as under:- “The complaint was presented by counsel for the complainant. The counsel for complainant by supporting the complaint, got recorded statement of Ajmer Singh, Hari Singh and Kulwant Singh in the compliant. On considering the facts of the case, it was found that respondents No. 1 to 5 be summoned and file be presented on 17.02.2011.” As per contents of the petition, the petitioners and respondents are having joint land situated at village Chhjju Bhatt, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala comprised in Khewat No. 91, Khatoni No. 137, Khasra Nos. 44//23/2(2-5), 24(5-18), 52//12/1/2 (3-0), 2(6-8), 3(8-0), 4 (8-0), Khatoni No.s 138 Khasra Nos. 52//10/1(606), 53//6(7-7) Kitte 8, Total 47 Kanal 4 Marla. The respondents were trying to take forcible possession of the land in possession of the petitioners and were also trying to remove the trees standing in the land of the petitioners and further to demolish the khals and pahi of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring, mortgaging, selling and disposing of any part of the aforesaid land, the same is pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Nabha; the petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 for seeking ad-interim injunction, the same has been declined by both the Courts below and thereafter the petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 6968 of 2011 against the order dated 17.08.2010 and 01.09.2011 passed by the learned Courts below. In the said Revision Criminal Misc.M.No.38988 of 2011 3 Petition, this Court has granted the status-quo order on 15.11.2011; the petitioners have also filed an application under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act regarding partition of the land described in Khewat No. 91 total measuring 47 Kanal 4 Marlas, situated at Village Chhajju Bhatt, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, wherein the petitioners are seeking partition of the land between the parties qua their shares as per the Jamabandi for the year 2007-08; the learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade has passed the order that in this land trees grown are also Mushtarka of the parties, meanwhile, all the trees, Khals, Pahies will remain intact in the Mushtarka land from the date on which this case has been filed; the complaint under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C was filed by the respondent no. 1 against 9 persons i.e.5 gents and 4 ladies but only five persons were summoned by the learned Lower Court in the said complaint, out of the said five persons, Bikram Singh, petitioner No. 4 is working in Irrigation Department at Patiala and is residing at Patiala city for the last more than 8 years along with his family and Sher Singh- petitioner no. 5 is also working in the Forest Department at Nabha town and is residing at Nabha for the last more than six years alongwith his family. The respondents have wrongly mentioned the address of Bikram Singh and Sher Singh of village Bhoran Khurd in the above said complaint Bikram Singh and Sher Singh have been involved in the present false complaint being Government employees and the respondents have no cause of action against them; the petitioners filed Revision Petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala Criminal Misc.M.No.38988 of 2011 4 against the summoning order dated 01.02.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nabha in the complaint under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala has dismissed the revision petition being not maintainable in the Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record and relevant law. Section 107 Cr.P.C reads as under:- “Security for keeping the peace in other cases:- (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be be ordered to execute a bond (with or without sureties) for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.” “Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.” In the humble opinion of this Court, learned Executive Magistrate can issue show cause notice calling why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year when Magistrate either on the police report or Criminal Misc.M.No.38988 of 2011 5 otherwise is satisfied that such person is likely to commit a breach of peace or distrub the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may occasion a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity. Magistrate to form opinion of the above effect, has to mention grounds forming such opinion. From the record, it reveals that application by the respondents herein was moved on 1.2.2011 and on the same day, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed the impugned order. No satisfaction was recorded by the learned Magistrate even prima-facie to the effect that on the information received by him, petitioners herein (O.Ps therein) are likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. No ground is mentioned in the impugned order to the above said facts, which is sine quo non to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 107 Cr.P.C. No police report was ever called on the application. By the impugned order, learned Magistrate has not issued any show cause to the effect as to why petitioners herein (O.Ps therein) should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace for such a period as the learned Magistrate thinks fit. It seems that order is passed without caring to look into the provisions of Section 107 Cr.P.C. Approach of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate can not be appreciated. It can not be ruled out that impugned order was passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate either under political pressure with ulterior motive or for extreneous consideration. Criminal Misc.M.No.38988 of 2011 6 Summoning of the petitioners seems to be wholly unjustified and without jurisdiction. Learned Executive Magistrate has absolutely no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners to keep on appearing before him on the private complaint without telling them for what purpose they are being summoned. Order impugned can not be sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, petition is allowed. Order impugned herein is quashed. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Punjab to initiate enquiry against the Sub Divisional Magistrate to find out under what circumstances learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed impugned illegal order. (Alok Singh) December 22, 2011 Judge BB