BHATU SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision has been preferred for setting aside the order impugned dated 27.3.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 178 of 2008 by which order passed in a proceeding under Section 107, Cr PC by the Executive Magistrate, Ramgarh in Misc. Case No. 44 of 2008, on 14.10.2008 was affirmed whereby the petitioners herein were directed to execute bonds for a period of one year to maintain peace and be of good behaviour.

(2.) THE prosecution story in short was that while one Dayamanti Devi, i.e. the O.P.No. 2 had started construction boundary wall over the land pertaining to khata No.62 plot No. 1145, measuring an area of 0.03 acre on 21.1.2008 she was obstructed by the petitioners second party to the proceeding who abused and threatened her of dire consequences. The opposite party No. 2 Dayamanti Devi complained to the local police and by its report dated 31.8.2008 recommended for initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr PC against both the parties. The learned SDM, Ramgarh having been satisfied with the complaint and the report of the police thereof initiated a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr PC and issued show -cause against both the parties as to why they should not be bounded to execute bond for a period of one year to maintain peace and to be of good behavour. On receipt of the notices the parties entered appearance before the Sub - Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh and filed there respective "show -causes". Having received the same the learned SDM transferred the proceeding to the file of the Executive Magistrate who having gone through the contents of their causes shown and having been satisfied that it were the petitioners who were aggressive, called upon them to execute bonds for a period of one year each. Against that order, the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No. 178 of 2008 and the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh by order dated 27.3.2009 dismissed the appeal.

(3.) THE opposite party No. 2 entered appearance by executing vakalatnama and filed counter - affidavit stating inter alia that both the Courts below were consistent in findings of fact and on such ground alone this revision is fit to be dismissed. The learned counsel attracted the attention by submitting that he Courts below have given concurrent findings on appreciation of materials on the record and the same may not be reappreciated as no glaring illegality or irregularity in the impugned order could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, in the interest of distributive justice no interference was warranted under Section 397 of Cr PC.