GURDIP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 3, Ashok Kumar Bajaj, is the tenant of part of house No. 1/6-A, New Storey, Block I, Lajpat Nagar IV. Petitioner, Gurdeep Singh, is the son of the landlady. Some altercations seem to have taken place between respondent 3 and the petitioner on 22 9 87. In respect of the incident of 22.9.87 a Kalendra u/s 93/97 Delhi Police Act (the ACT) was filed by A S.I., Bal Kishan before the Met. Mgte. New Delhi. A copy of the Kalendra and statement of respondent 3 recorded by A.S.I. on 22.9.87 has been placed on record. The Kalendra u/s 93/97 of the Act is an respect of the alleged incident of 22.9.87. On 28.11.87 the M.M. took cognizance of the offence u/S, 93/97 of the Act and framed a notice of the same date stating that "it is alleged against you Gurdeep Singh s/o Shri Shadi Lal, aged 30 years, that on 22.9 87 at about 9.45 P.M. near house no 1/6A, Vikram Vihar, within the jurisdiction of P.P. Amar Colony, you are abusing Ashok Bajaj, your tenant, in the street causing annoyance to the inhabitants of the locality and there was likelihood of the breach of peace and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S. 93/97 D P. Act." The notice was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty. After framing of the notice as aforesaid the matter was adjourned from time to to time but it did not make any progress. Ultimately, examination-in-chief of respondent 3 was recorded on 1.3 89. On the same day i.e, 1.3.89 the Magistrate came to the conclusion that from statement of respondent 3 it appears prima facie that in fact a case u/S. 448 Indian Penal Code , was made out against the accused. The charge was amended accordingly. On the request of the counsel for the petitioner the cross-examination of respondents 3 was deferred with a view to enable the petitioner to challenge the order amending the charge.

(2.) Under the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition has been filed u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the 'Code') seeking quashing of kalendra u/Ss. 93 of the Act and charge dated 1.3.89 u/S. 448 IPC. In order to appreciate the challenge in the petition it would be appropriate to reproduce Ss. 97, (o) and (r) of the Act which provisions read as under :-

(3.) The challenge to the notice dated 28.1187 framed u/S. 93 and 97 of the Act is that neither the kalendra nor the statement of respondent 3 recorded in relation to alleged incident of 22.9.87 makes out an offence u/Ss. 93 and 97 of the Act. I have been taken through the kalendra and the statement of respondent 3. It is evident therefrom that the alleged altercations between respondent 3 and the petitioner took place in house No 1/6A, Vikram Vihar, New Delhi, and not in any 'street' or 'public'. According to statement of respondent 3 he was abused in filthy language by petitioner in the said house and the petitioner was ready to quarrel with him and to harm him. To the game effect are the averments made in the kalendra. Sec. 93 of the Act makes it an offence for any person to use in any street or public place any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned. Under S. 97 of the Act on conviction such a person is punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 100.00, or, in default of payment of such fine, with inprisonment for a term not exceeding eight days. It is a pre-requisite of S. 93 of the Act that the offending act shall be in any street or public place. The terms 'street' and public place' have been defined in S. 2(r) and (o) of the Act. The 'street' or 'public place' cannot be construed to mean an altercation in the private house. There was no material whatsoever before the Magistrate for even prima facie coming to the conclusion that petitioner had caused annoyance in the 'street', Accordingly, the kalendra u/Ss. 93 and 97 of of the Act and notice dated 28.11.87 are liable to be quashed.