THAKUR RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed with a prayer for quashing a proceeding under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been started against the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners appear to be rich and influential persons. Dinanath, petitioner No. 3, is a son of Thakur Ram petitioner No. 1. At the instance of one Bishwanath Prasad, a criminal case for offences under Sections 148, 307 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code was started against Dinanath and others in 1956. Puran Mull and other Marwaris were witnesses for the prosecution. On the 29th January, 1959, the case ended in acquittal. On the 15th November, 1959, Dinanath served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the Sub-Inspector of Ghorasahan police station stating that he intended to file a suit against him for damages for malicious prosecution. Dinanath is the Mukhia of Ghorasahan Gram Panchayat and is also the President of the Thana Panchayat Parishad. The case against the petitioners is that, at their instance, a panchayati was held in which Dinanath claimed compensation from different persons of the Marwari community for the expense which he had to incur in defending the criminal case against him and others^ which, according to him, was false. The panchayati allowed him certain compensation against different individual Marwaris. He then used force against them, threatened them and by other foul means extorted different sums of money from them. On the 17th February 1960, Prahlad Raj, Puran Mull, Maliram and Taraichand filed a. joint petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, making those allegations. The Sub-divisional Magistrate sent the matter for enquiry and report to the police. The police submitted a report dated 28th February, 1960, in which they stated that the allegations against the petitioners were correct and that a report for action, under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners was submitted. The Sub-divisional Magistrate started a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners by an order dated the 9th March, 1980. On the basis of the same allegations, he started a proceeding under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against them by his order dated the 7th April, 1960. Subsequently, substantive cases for extortion were started against the petitioners at the instance of those who alleged that they had extorted different amounts of money from them.

(3.) Mr Gorakh Nath Singh, who has appeared ton behalf of the petitioners, has argued that it is neither just nor legal that both the proceedings under Sections 107 and 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code should continue against the petitioners. I do not see any illegality, but I do think that both the proceedings in the circumstances of this case against the petitioners are not in accordance with justice. It is not alleged in the petition dated the 17th February, 1960. nor in the police report dated 28th February, 1960 that the petitioners attack people at random, extort different amounts of money from them or do any criminal act or mischief The allegations make out a case that the petitioners had rightly or wrongly a grievance against some individuals of the Marwari community and they have, therefore, been extorting money from them. On the basis of these allegations, the Sub-divisional Magistrate was fully justified in drawing up a proceeding under Section 107 against them, but not a proceeding under Section 110. Simply if a person attacks and commits criminal offences against his enemies or some supposed enemies, the proper procedure to follow is to draw up a proceeding under Section 107 against him, Section 110 will only apply if the man commits offences habitually against people in general.