BABAJI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The delinquents in the proceeding under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') have filed this application under S.482 of the Code praying to quash the proceeding in Criminal Misc. Case No. 713 of 1988 pending in court of the Executive Magistrate, Puri. The proceeding was initiated at the instance of the opposite parties 2 to 14 who are arrayed as the first party therein. The ground on which the proceeding is challenged is raised very often in such proceedings. It is this : The learned Magistrate issued the notices merely on the police report without holding any independent enquiry.

(2.) It appears from the records that on getting the report of the Officer-in-charge, Kakatpur Police Station, the learned Executive Magistrate, Puri felt satisfied from the said report that there was apprehension of imminent breach of the peace and disturbance of public tranquillity and that action under S.107 of the Code was necessary to be taken against members of the second party. Accordingly he noticed the petitioners on 5-10-88 to appear in his court on 15-10-88 and show cause as to why they should not execute bonds for Rs. 1,000/- with one surety each for the like amount to keep peace in the locality for a period of one year. On being served with the notice the notices have filed this application challenging the proceeding mainly on the ground noticed earlier. A further ground has been taken that the notice lacks particulars of the allegations against the petitioners and therefore it is bad.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the observations in some decided cases, to which I shall refer a little later, has urged that the learned Magistrate should not have issued the notice without holding some independent enquiry to ascertain the credibility of the information contained in the police report. The learned counsel for the opposite parties first party on the other hand contended that the petitioners have only been noticed to appear and show cause why they should not execute bonds for maintaining peace and tranquillity in the area. It is open to them to file their reply to the notice and refute the facts/allegations stated in the notice where after the learned Magistrate will enquire into the matter if he feels the necessity for it and pass appropriate orders in the proceeding. In short, the contention of the learned counsel was that the challenge to the proceeding at this stage is premature and the petitioners have unnecessarily rushed to this Court before even filing their show cause in pursuance of the notice. As noticed earlier, these grounds are very often taken to challenge initiation of the proceedings under S.107 of the Code.