BANDT SURAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal petition under section 482 of the CrI. PC and is directed against the preliminary order bar the Sub-Divl Magistrate, Hospet under section 111 Criminal Procedure Code, while dealing with the case of security for keeping the peace under S. 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. is manifest from the preliminary order that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate received information, which was a report of the Police Sub-Inspector, Gudekota, that these petitioners were likely to commit the breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity in as much as that at three specific occasions, on 30-6-1975, 18-10-1975 and 22-12-1975, they were found either having trespassed into the houses and fields of CWs. 2, 3 and 4 or having threatened them and caused damage to their properties. Similarly they also assaulted them with sticks and stones. Besides these specific instances, the preliminary order also described that the petitioners were moving about in the village armed with deadly weapons and were threatening CWs.2 to 4 and there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace. Upon that information the learned Sub-Divl Magistrate formed his opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding and thereafter he issued the show cause notice culminating in the preliminary order under section 111 of the Code. Against that order, the petitioners have come up with the present petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) As evident, section 397(2) of the Code prohibits a revision against any interlocutory order and that is why the petitioners have invoked section 482, CrI. PC, for the exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court. It is to be understood at the very out set that section 432 dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked so as to make permissive something that is prohibited elsewhere in the Code. To say otherwise would be to render nugatory the prohibition of revision against interlocutory orders as contained in S. 307 (2) of the Code. There may be a case which discloses a patent error on the face of the record leading to abuse of the process of the Court. In such a case in order to secure the ends of justice, inherent powers even in a case where revision is prohibited, may be exercised. But I find that the present case does not fall in that category. The satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divl Magistrate to formulate the opinion as contemplated under S1.107 Crl. PC was there and no one can say that the information received was not sufficient to formulate that opinion. The learned Counsel submitted that CW.7. has filed a civil suit while CW.4 has instituted a criminal complaint and that by itself should indicate that preventive proceeding under section 107 Code Criminal Procedure need not have been resorted ta. But from this, it, cannot be inferred that in a case in which a civil suit is filed or a criminal complaint is instituted, nevertheless the Magistrate gets information and formulates the opinion that sufficient grounds exist for proceeding, even then proceedings under S. 107 may not be resorted to and the sub-Divl. Magistrate must reject the security proceeding in the hope that redress shall be afforded in the civil suit or in the criminal complaint. The entire requirement depends upon the information that is received and the material that is forth-coming to formulate the opinion that there is a ground for proceeding under section 107 Cr1. PC, As long as that requirement is mane out, in my minion, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 107 will neither lead to abuse of the process of the Court nor defeat the ends of justice.

(3.) In the preliminary order, there is a further allegation that these petitioners are moving about in the village with deadly weapons and they are obviously out to commit acts leading to breach of peace and they are also likely to disturb the public tranquillity. That v, as also a ground for proceeding under Sec. 107.