AHMED TEA COMPANY (P) LTD. Vs. MANSUTA SAWNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up on 7.12.78. In that providing the Petitioner herein was a member of the first party. He remained absent on 28.5.79 and also on the previous date whereupon the leased IDM (Executives) dropped the proceedings because of the "default of the first party". This order has been impugned in this revision.

(2.) THERE is a consensus among different High Court in India that such a proceeding cannot be dismissed for default. The reason for the same is that the power under Section 145 is exercised not in the interest of any individual as such, but for the larger public interest of preventing breach of peace. All that private individual does in such a case' is to bring the matter to the notice of the Magistrate stating that there is an apprehension of breach of peace. It is because of this that the informant in such a case is not tested as a complainant of any offence. Of course, if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that there is ho threat to the breach of peace, an order of the present nature can be cancelled under Sub -section (5), It may also be pointed out that though proceeding under Section 145 has some civil character as would be apparent from the fact that under Sub -section (7) there is provision even for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased party, nonetheless, the proceeding is not wholly civil in nature, and dismissal of such a proceeding for default is not visualised by law.

(3.) BY referring to the aforesaid decision, it was held in Bhava Rao v. Vim Rao : AIR 1958 Bom 450 that a preliminary order passed under Sub -section (1) has either to find its culmination in the final order Viaualised by Sub -section (4), or it could be cancelled under one circumstance, and we circumstance alone, namely that no dispute threatening public peace exists or had existed.