IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M M O No.85 of 2003 Date of decision: 16.10.2008 _____________________________________________________ Ram Dass & others Petitioners Versus Respondents State of H.P. & others Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the petitioners Mr. B.S.Atri, Advocate, For respondents 1 & 2 Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer For respondent No.3 Mr. Padam Chand Sharma, Advocate Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Heard. This petition has been filed, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceedings in case No.47/4/03 titled as State versus Ram Dass and others, pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arki, District Solan, precisely on the ground that earlier also, on the same allegation the complaint was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, subsequently, applicant Achharu Ram moved an 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? yes. 2 application to review the matter and that application was sent for inquiry to SHO Darlaghat, on the basis of which a fresh complaint was filed by the police, under sections 107/150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before him, which was registered as complaint No.47/4 of 2003 and culminated into the order dated 8.7.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arki, Distt. Solan, whereby the respondent was summoned and notice under section 111 Cr.P.C. was issued. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arki, District Solan. As a matter of fact, applicant Achharu Ram had earlier made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arki, District Solan, on 7.2.2003, which was sent, on the same day, to the S.H.O. Darlaghat, for inquiry & report, with respect to the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 6.2.2003. After the inquiry, a complaint under sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. was presented in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arki, District Solan. On consideration, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, did not find any substance in the complaint or existence of breach of peace, thus 3 vide its order dated 9.5.2003 he dropped the proceedings. Thereafter, the applicant Achharu Ram again appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and moved an application in the month of June, 2003 wherein he made a reference of his earlier complaint and alleged therein that the petitioners had threatened his witnesses with dire consequences and he apprehends breach of peace from the hands of the petitioners. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arki, District Solan sent the application to S.H.O. Darlaghat, for inquiry and report on 2.6.2003. After recording the statements of the applicant Achharu Ram and his witnesses, police presented a complaint under sections 107, 150 and 145 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein. On the perusal of the complaint and statements of the witnesses, I do not find that the dispute was in any way falling under section 145Cr.P.C. However, the matter was considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 8.7.2003 and in his opinion it was a case of existence of breach of peace, as such ordered the petitioners to be summoned for 20.8.2003 and further made a reference that this order is made under section 111 Cr.P.C. Legally, when a Magistrate acting 4 under section 107 Cr.P.C. deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he is under obligation to make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be inforce, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required, but in the present case the order dated 8.7.2003 does not satisfy these legal requirements as such it is unsustainable. I would have remitted the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, to correct the procedure in accordance with law but on the perusal of the statement of the applicant and its witnesses recorded by the police during inquiry I do not find it a case worth taking cognizance of the matter by the said court for the reason that statements of the witnesses and also the complainant do not disclose the existence of breach of peace which a sine-qua-non. A sporadic incident cannot bring out a case for taking action under section 107 Cr.P.C. As such, the order dated 8.7.2003 is bad in law and is set aside and so also the complaint, which stands dismissed. The petition stands disposed of. 5 Records of the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Arki, District Solan be returned forthwith. October 16, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)