JAI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Narain and Roshni Devi have come in this petition u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of Calendra D.D. No. 30 dated June 14, 1993 in proceedings u/ss. 41(2) and 109 Cr. P.c. relating to PS Sadar, Pan ipat.

(2.) Jai Narain-petitioner-l is working as a PTI in Government High School, Kumar, Panipat, while Roshni Devi is an employee of Haryana Agricultural Department, Panipat. On June 14, 1993, Ranjit Kumar ASI over-powered both the petitioners near the Bridge, Jijulapur Drain while they were under the influence of liquor and were preparing for some entertainment. They were then produced before the Sub Inspector and on the basis that they were under the influence of liquor and tried to commit some offence, proceedings were initiated.

(3.) Section 109 of the Code which is relevant, provides as follows: 1o9 Security for good behaviour from suspected persons: When (an Executive Magistrate) receives information that there is within his local Jurisdiction a person taking precautions to conceal his presence and that there is reason to believe that he is doing so with a view to committing a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit. This section was incorporated to be utilised as a preventive measure against persons who are found at a place where they do not have their normal abode and a suspicion arises of their concealing their presence for commission of an offence. The use of this section to arrest a man and a woman who had taken liquor and wanted to have some mutual entertainment was probably not ever warranted. To say the least, it will be misuse of this section. The mere fact that these two persons were indiscreet in the matter of their enjoyment cannot make their action to be one of preparation for commission of an offence.