AINUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this Rule is whether the proceedings instituted against the petitioners under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code are without jurisdiction.

(2.) It appears that there is a dispute between one Jnanada Sundari Choudhurani and her adopted son, Promode Chandra Roy Chaudhuri, with respect to a Mouza, Nowapara, which is claimed by the former as her personal property, while the latter claims it as part of his adoptive father s estate. On the 26th February 1920 one Akhoy Kumar Dutt, the naib of the lady, put in a petition before the Additional District Magistrate of Mymensingh to the effect that he had gone to the village Nowapara, to collect rents from the tenants, that the opposite party, Promode Chandra, deputed his manager and other officers to obstruct him in realizing rents and drive him from the village, that with the said object the men of the opposite party, about 100 to 125, armed with lathis were hovering in the village and terrorizing the tenants if they paid rents to the lady and preventing them from paying rents to her. Some specific acts of oppression were alleged to have been committed by the men of opposite party. It was further stated that there was apprehension of a serious breach of the peace, and it was prayed that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, might be drawn up against Promode Chandra and several other persons (named in the petition). The Magistrate directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to enquire into the matter and report. The latter thereupon made the enquiry and submitted a report to the effect that "there was a dispute between Jnanada Sundari and her adopted son, Promode Chandra Roy Choudhuri, with respect to Mouza Nowapara, and that on the 24th February 1920 some peadas and barakandazes of the second party had gone to village Nowapara and threatened the tenants and asked them not to pay rent to the first party. They also threatened the naib (complainant) and Abdul Sheikh, mentioned above. It has also been proved that the complainant first party, Akhoy Kumar Dutt, called one Lochan Ramdas, barkandaz of Char Pubail, to his cutchery and abused and threatened him for his not paying the rent. Up to date there has been no riot and unlawful assembly, but there is every likelihood of it in the near future, as the first party will try to realize rent from the tenants and the second party will prevent them from doing so. There is, therefore, every likelihood of a breach of the peace between the parties unless they settle the matter amicably. There is no chance of an amicable settlement at present, that the proceeding may be drawn up against both the parties and their officers and other servants whose names are given in column 4 of the report who are all interested in the affair under sum noted against each for a year to keep the peace. I have already issued warning notices under Section 154, Indian Penal Code, to the parties concerned."

(3.) On the 22nd March 1920 proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code were ordered to be drawn up in accordance with the said, report. The second party on the 3rd June 1920 put in a written statement, and prayed that if any preventive action was considered to be at all necessary, proceedings under Section 145 might be instituted. The Magistrate thereupon made the following orders: "I shall not convert the ease into one under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code."