REDDY CHANNABASAVANNA GOUD Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners 40 in number belong to the village of Hirebannimatti in the district of Bellary where there are two parties one led by Reddy Channabasavanna Goud (petitioner No. 1) and another led by Bellary Basalingappa. Bellary Basalingappa made a complaint to the police of Hadagalli stating that some of the petitioners trespassed into his house and committed theft of foodgrains on 3.5.1972. The Sub -Inspector of Police sent a report to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Hospet to take action under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the petitioners as there was likelihood of breach of peace. His sworn statement was recorded. Whereupon the Sub -Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code as follows : -

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate on the ground that legally no proceedings could be taken against them on the allegations made by Bellary Basalingappa and the Sub -Inspector of Police, Hadagalli and that the order complained of was consequently bad in law. From the order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate it is clear that some of the petitioners are not at all connected with any of the allegations made by Bellary Basalingappa or by the Sub -Inspector of Police. In regard to an incident that happened on or about 20.10.1971 Bellary Basalingappa made a complaint to the police alleging that, petitioners 10, 11, 12 and 13, trespassed into his land and removed the fence and electric pump set and threatened him to do away with his life. No action has been taken with regard to this complaint as the order itself discloses. In regard to an incident that is alleged to have taken place on 26 -11 -71 the said Basalingappa made a complaint alleging that, petitioners 1, 6, 11, 14 and 16 entered the engine room of his garden and removed the fence and electric pump set. Regarding that also no action has been taken. With respect to other incident alleged to have taken place on 3.5.1972 the same Basalingappa has made a complaint alleging that petitioners 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 11 and 14 to 40 trespassed into his house and committed theft of foodgrains and agricultural implements. Regarding this it is seen that the investigation is pending. Again the said Basalingappa filed a private complaint in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Hadagalli against petitioners 1, 3 to 7, 10, 11, 14 to 16, 18 to 20, 25, 26, 33, 38 and 40 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 379 and 447, I.P.C. and the said case is pending.

(3.) MOREOVER , the information of the kind mentioned in Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be of a clear and definite kind directly affecting the person against whom process is issued and it should disclose tangible details so that he may come prepared to meet the said allegations. In the case before me the Sub -Divisional Magistrate has failed to state that, in his opinion, a breach of peace is likely to take place. It is further clear that the acts in respect of which security is required must not be acts the repetition of which may be merely apprehended from the commission of similar acts but acts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the accused are likely to commit a breach of the peace. In the circumstances of the case I hold that there was no legal justification for the Sub -Divisional Magistrate to take action under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code.