CHRISTALIN COSTA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the institution of two Chapter Cases against them by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, panaji, at the instance of the Panaji Police Station wherein the petitioners were directed by the respondent No. 4 to execute bonds for keeping peace and good conduct under section 107 of Cr. P. C. It appears that the proceedings were initiated by the police against the petitioners on a complaint lodged by the respondents No. 2 and 3 at Panaji Police Station. The petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 are neighbours and are living in Altinho, Panaji. However their relations are quite strained and there are constant quarrels on account of which Police complaints and counter complaints have been lodged by both the parties. For the purpose of this petition that the first complaint which is relevant is the one filed on 5-6-91 pursuant to which Chapter Case No. 112 of 1991 was initiated by the Panaji Police Station. Accordingly the petitioners were made to appear before the respondent No. 4 and a bond was directed to be executed by them by the Magistrate under section 107 of Cr. P. C. which bond they actually executed before him.

(2.) THEREAFTER one more complaint was lodged by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioners on 7-4-1992 consequent upon which fresh proceeding under section 107 of Cr. P. C. were started against them. In this case also the petitioners were directed to execute a bond for maintaining peace. Both these orders are now the subject matter of this petition.

(3.) SHRI Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted before me that as far as the proceedings in Chapter Case No. 112 of 1991 wherein they have executed a bond even assuming that the facts of the complaint lodged by respondents No. 2 and 3 to the police as well as in the report forwarded by the respondents No. 1 and 4 are correct the proceedings under section 107 of Cr. P. C. are to be deemed as lapsed after a period of six months. Indeed the said proceedings having been instituted on 5-6-1991 it is obvious that the period of six months has already passed and as per the law no such proceedings could be maintained by the Magistrate. The learned Counsel contended that the petitioners have made an application to respondent No. 4 on 23-2-1992 praying that the proceedings pending against them be closed, but inspite of that till the time of filing of this petition on 16-4-1992 no orders have been passed.