CHATHA ITTAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order of the Division First Class Magistrate, Always, by which the learned Magistrate discharged counter-petitioners 3 to 6 in M. C. 3 of 1951 on the file of his court. In that case, six persons were being proceeded against under Section 107 Criminal P. C. (Travancore Section 103) to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace. When counter-petitioners 3 to 6 appeared in court pursuant to the notice issued to them, they filed an application requesting the court to drop the proceedings as against them at the same time undertaking that they will not commit any breach of the peace. The prosecution represented by the prosecuting Inspector of Police supported the motion made by the said counter-petitioners and filed a report to the effect that there was no likelihood then of any breach of peace being caused by them. The present petitioner who moved, the police to take action under Section 107 against the counter-petitioners, sought to intervene at that stage to oppose the motion. The court held that he had no locus standi to intervene and passed orders under Section 119, Criminal P. C. (Travancore Section 115) discharging counter-petitioners 3 to 6 on the ground that the court was satisfied that there was no necessity to continue the proceedings as against them. The revision petition is against that order.

(2.) TWO points arise for decision here. One is whether the petitioner is competent to file this revision. The other is whether the Magistrate's order is bad in law.

(3.) THE petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this revision petition. He was not a party to the proceedings before the lower court. That proceeding was between the State on the one hand, and the counter-petitioners thereto on the other. The Magistrate's order refusing to listen to the objection was therefore right and the petitioner cannot have in this Court any higher right than what he had before the primary court.