RAGHUNATH MEKAP Vs. GOPINATH PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Members of 2nd party are petitioners tin this revision against notice to show cause and to furnish interim bond as required Under Section 107, Cr PC.

(2.) IN the notice dated 3 -11 -1983, learned Magistrate observed as follows; 'Whereas it appears 1rom the report submitted by the O.I.C. Town P. S. that the members of second party are in hostile term due to family dispute. The members of second party have formed an unlawful combination and trying to harass the first party in various ways and threatening to assault. Or 23 -8 -1988 the second party Chhabi Mekap abused and threatened Arta Patri to assault. On 25 -8 -1988 at 7.40 p. m. Chhabi Mekap suddenly attacked Arta Patri at Raghaba Das Math near Southern gate when Arta Patri was returning to his house from the temple. I am satisfied from the above report that there is apprehension of imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court and actions Under Section TOT, CrPC is necessary against the members of second party........................'

(3.) IT is to be remembered that an order Under Section 111, Cr PC directing rssue of notice to a delinquent and notice on that basis is intended to give sufficient notice of accusation made against that person. (See 19 (1953) CLT 370 Sanatan. Baliar Singh and Ors. v. State and Anr.). This order can be on basis of a police report. (See 22 (1956) CLT 508 Munshi Gofur Khan and Ors. v. Sk. Saratullah and Ors.). Mere notice by itself does not cause any prejudice to the delinquent as he can show cause and satisfy the Magistrate that either there is no apprehension of any breach of peace or that he has no connection with the same. But before rssue of notice Magistrate is to apply his judicial mind about a prima facie view that there is apprehension of breach of peace. Legislature in its wisdom has left it to the Magistrate to maintain law and order for which this power has been vested. Where the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind and has issued notice, higher Courts ought not to interfere with the same merely because they would take a different view of the matter. Even a police report may in some circumstances be sufficient to be based for issuing notice. It would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case depending upon the nature of the police report. But the notice itself should state the acts complained of in such details as will put the delinquent in adequate notice of what case he may have to meet. Where the notice is vague and wrongful acts alleged against the delinquent are not at all stated, the proceeding is to be quashed as the delinquent would be prejudiced inasmuch as he would not be able to show any cause. (See 24 (1958) CLT 123 Lokanath Das and Ors. v. State).