NAMDEO GOVIND SABLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. The petitioner who is residing at Bombay, has challenged the notice issued by the Executive Magistrate, Shrivardhan, District-Raigad, asking him to show cause why proceeding under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be instituted against him and he should not be called upon to execute a bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 with surety, for keeping peace and good behaviour.

(2.) THE facts leading to the issuance of this notice are as follows: Sanjay Tukaram Mahadik, who is witness in the proceeding was working with the petitioner as his servant in his jewellery shop at Borivli, Bombay. While so working, said Sanjay had stolen some ornaments from the shop of the petitioner. Thereafter, in a settlement that took place between the petitioner and the said Sanjay, latter agreed to return the ornaments or value thereof and in fact returned half quantity of the stolen ornaments and assured to return the balance. Therefore, petitioner had gone to demand the remaining ornaments from the witness Sanjay. At that time, mother of Sanjay by name Saraswati who is also witness in this case, stated that nothing would be paid, to the petitioner. Being enraged by that, petitioner is alleged to have assaulted Saraswati by kicks and fists and on that allegation, Saraswati lodged complaint in Shrivardhan Police Station on 9-9-1996 under section 323 of the I.P.C. and the same was registered as non-cognizable offence and Saraswati was informed about the same and she was directed to approach proper Court. With this incident, an apprehension is expressed by the Police Inspector that the petitioner is likely to assault the witnesses and, therefore, to prevent breach of peace, proceedings under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated against him. On the basis of those factual aspects on the report of the Police Inspector the Executive Magistrate issued the impugned notice against the petitioner.