MANDALAPU SUNDAR NARAYAN Vs. V V CHENULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER and opposite party belong to the same street in Jeypore town. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother and petitioner No. 3 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 7 is the father-in-law of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioners 4 to 6 are the sons of petitioner No, 7. It is said that about 3. 30 p. m. on 13-10-67 the son of petitioner No. 1 pushed a young Sindhi boy riding on a cycle as a result of which he fell down. This took place in hont of the house of the opposite party and the opposite party chided the son of petitioner No. 1. Petitioners 2 and 3 abused the opposite party in insulting language. At about 6. 30 p. m. the opposite party was restrained and assaulted in the house of petitioner No. 1. The matter was reported at the police station, but no action was taken. The opposite party thereupon filed a complaint on 19-10-67 before the Magistrate, First Class, Jeypore, alleging commission of certain criminal offences and the same is pending. The inaction on the part of the Police encouraged the petitioners to indulge in further threats and aggression. The opposite party heard petitioners 2 and 3 talking with other females, that the opposite party would be chastised further and ho shall have to run to the police station again. As a result of this the opposite party was unable to stir out of his house. A petition was accordingly filed under Section 107, Criminal procedure Code to bind down the petitioners as their action created an apprehension of breach of peace. On this petition the learned Magistrate passed the following order on 24-10-67:--

(2.) ON 6-11-67 all the petitioners were present except petitioners 2 and 3 who appeared through an Advocate. After hearing the learned Advocates, the magistrate directed the petitioners to execute bonds of Rs. 100/- each under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code with one surety (or a like amount, to maintain peace pending the completion of the enquiry; in default, to be detained for a period of 6 months. Against the learned Magistrate's order dated 24-10-1967 criminal Revision Petition No. 29 of 1969 was filed by the petitioners before the sessions Judge, Jeypore, who allowed the revision and made a reference to this court for quashing the proceedings of the learned Magistrate for non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 112 and 117 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge held that the Magistrate had recorded no reasons in writing and mechanic cally passed the order under Section 117 (3), on the very day he passed the order under Section 112 and in such circumstances he was of opinion that calling upon the petitioners to furnish interim bonds was contrary to law.

(3.) THIS reference came up for hearing before Mr, Justice R. N. Mishra. On 4-111969 he passed the following order: