AMIT PAL SINGH Vs. ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order, dated the 29th Dec., 1975, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City, in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal P. C. (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code'). On an application filed by Anil Kumar Misra, Opposite Party No. I, the Magistrate passed the following order on 29-12-75. Heard the petitioner. The matter seems to be urgent. Remind the officer in-charge by giving a copy to submit report if the life of the petitioner in fact is in danger. Proceeding under Section 107, Cr, P, C. should be started. Further a report should be submitted at once. In the meantime issue show cause proceeding from the record at once, Put up on 15-1-76. Sd.00 G. D. Misra, S.D.M. In pursuance of this order, a notice was also issued to the petitioner and a copy of the same has been filed along with this application marked as Annexure-1 in which, it has been stated that the petitioner was threatening to kill the second party and thus there was an apprehension of breach of the peace and, therefore, the petitioner should show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. l.000.00 with two sureties each of the like amount for maintaining peace for a period of one year. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order, dated the 29th Dec., 1975, and the notice served on him as contained in Annexure-1 has moved this Court in revision for quashing.

(2.) Mr. Salauddin Khan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the order, dated 29-12-75 is absolutely vague, does not give any substance of information and also does not show that the Magistrate was satisfied that there was an apprehension of breach of the peace, because he has called for a report from the police. According to him, no proceeding under Section 107 was initiated, still the petitioner has been asked to execute bond by virtue of the notice (Annexure-1) which is wholly illegal and unjustified. It has also been submitted that the matters which has been referred to in the notice has not been mentioned in the order sheet and in that view of the matter, the notice sent to the petitioner is bad and should be quashed.

(3.) Learned Counsel has further submitted that even in the notice the substance of information received is not given and, therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to file an effective show cause.