1 cr.appln.2412 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2412 OF 2010 Mr. Akhilesh Gaud and Anr. ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Rajendra Sorankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : DECEMBER 08, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicants herein invoke inherent powers of this court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the chapter proceedings initiated against both the applicants. The applicants were served with summons dated 7th February, 2009 accompanied by the show cause notice of the even date calling upon them to remain present before the Special Executive Magistrate on 17th February, 2009 for hearing in the chapter cases, i.e. court case No. 17 of 2009/Chapter Case No. 11/09 against applicant no. 1 and court case no. 18 of 2009/Chapter Case No. 12 of 2009 against applicant no. 2. The present 2 cr.appln.2412 of 2010 application is in fact a second attempt on the part of the applicants for quashing of the chapter proceedings initiated by respondents against them. Both the applicants had filed criminal revision application No. 15 of 2009 before the Sessions Court which came to be dismissed by the order dad 28th April, 2010. Thereafter, they filed the present application on 6th May, 2010. By the ad interim order dated 7th June, 2010 passed in the present application, chapter proceedings have been stayed pending the hearing of the present application. There was also stay granted to the chapter proceedings during the pendency of the criminal revision application before the sessions court. 2. The applicants claim to be social workers and also members of the communist party of India. The show cause notice dated 7th February, 2009 alleges that the applicants are persons without substantial means of livelihood. They indulge in unlawful activities of abusing and disturbing government servants in order to prevent them from performing their duties, demanding extortion money with the threat of harm and damage to the person and property of the general pubic. These activities on the part of the applicants, according to respondents are creating apprehension in the mind of general public as regards harm to their person and property. There are also criminal proceedings 3 cr.appln.2412 of 2010 filed against the applicants. Show cause notice refers to C.R. No. 424 of 2008 registered against both the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 385, 323, 504, 506 (II) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code alleging that the applicants along with their accomplice had been demanding ransom of Rs. 20/- per day from the shop owners and the hawkers in Dr. Ambedkar Mandai, Kandivali (West), Mumbai. Initially the witness no. 1 Mr. Gupta was paying Rs. 20 per day to the applicants just as the other shop owners and hawkers in the area. However, from October, 2008, some of the residents resisted the illegal acts on the part of the applicants and stopped paying monthly amount to the applicants. Then applicants and their accomplices abused the shop owners and hawkers and threatened to kill them. The complaint further alleges that on 18th October, 2008 at about 3.00 p.m. when the complainant was at shop, both the applicants along with two other persons came and abused, assaulted and threatened him for non payment of the monthly amount. When the crowd started gathering around the shop, the applicants and their accomplices fled away. After the incident the complainant along with about 10 to 12 shop owners in the locality had sent representation to the Deputy Chief Minister, State of Maharashtra, against the applicants and their accomplices and the 4 cr.appln.2412 of 2010 offences as per C.R. No. 424 of 2008 came to be registered. Kandivali Police Station carried out investigation into the complaint. Both the applicants were arrested in the complaint filed and have since been released on bail. The show cause notice further alleges that the acts of the applicants and their accomplices are towards committing breach of peace and disturbing public tranquility. On account of their acts, the shop owners, workers working in the shops and independent witnesses are being harassed. The residents apprehend that the applicants will continue to commit the acts of disturbing the public tranquility and also committing breach of peace in the area. Therefore, the applicants were called upon to show cause as to why the proceedings under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. should not be taken against them and they be asked to execute a bond in the sum of Rs 15,000/- with one surety for keeping peace for the period of one year. 3. The applicants did not sent any reply to the show cause notice served upon them. The response was only to challenge the proceedings by filing criminal revision application before the Sessions Court which has been dismissed. The contentions raised by the applicants before this court to challenge the proceedings 5 cr.appln.2412 of 2010 against them are same as before the Sessions Court. It has been contended by them that the proceedings initiated against them are abuse of process of law and there was no substance in the allegations made against them. On the day of the incident alleged in the notice, they claim, that they were at Lonawala. A copy of the hotel bill for the period of 16th to 18th October, 2008 has been produced. It is also contended that a solitary instance leading to criminal proceedings cannot be a ground for preventive action on the part of the respondents against the applicants. 4. Mr. Sorankar, the learned counsel for the applicants relies upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Aluva Balaiagari Chandra Reddy Versus The Revenue Inspector, Rajampet and another, reported in 1980 Cr.L.J. 1169 to submit that where there is offence registered again the person for a solitary act and the police investigation in the same is in progress, proceedings under section 107 of Cr.P.C. for the same act against the same persons are not proper. Perusal of the complaint shows that the incident alleged in the complaint being C.R. No. 424 of 2008 is not a solitary act. There have been complaints against the applicants of similar acts prior to the date of the registration of C.R. No. 424 of 2008 and even thereafter. 6 cr.appln.2412 of 2010 The acts on the part of the applicants had made the shop owners and the hawkers in the area to complain to the Deputy Chief Minister. This representation when was looked into and investigated by police resulted in the filing of the complaint. Therefore, it can not be said that the respondents have proceeded against the applicants on the basis of a solitary act. On perusal of the show cause notice as a whole, it cannot be said that there is no material for proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against the applicants. As regards the defence of alibi of the applicants, it is open for the applicants to bring the same to the notice of the Special Executive Magistrate during the hearing before him pursuant to the show cause notice issued. It was also sought to be pointed out by Mr. Sorankar that there has been delay in completing the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice. He draws my attention to section 116 of Cr.P.C. to submit that it was incumbent upon the respondents to complete the enquiry within the period of six months from the date of commencement of the proceedings. He submits that if the enquiry is not completed within the period of six months, it stands terminated unless for the special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. In the instant case, the applicants have not even allowed the enquiry to commence. 7 cr.appln.2412 of 2010 They have interrupted the whole process by filing initially criminal revision application before the Sessions Court and thereafter the present application. Therefore, it does not lie in their mouth to complain for the delay in completion of the enquiry during the period prescribed. In the circumstances, application is rejected. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)