ORDER
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.
1. These two writ petitions can be disposed of
by a common judgment and order as they are in the nature of cross writ petitions filed by the respective parties against each other and the question involved also, is the same, in both the petitions.
2. The first petition i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No. 58 of 1993, is filed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, praying that the Show Cause Notices dated 21st November, 1992 (Exh. B Collectively annexed to the petition) and proceedings before the concerned authorities in Chapter Case No. 8 of 1992 be quashed and set aside. Chandrarekha Harishchandra Mantri, who is the petitioner in the next petition i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No. 276 of 1993, is joined as respondent No. 2 in this petition. As against this, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 276 of 1993 is Chandrarekha and she has joined the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 58 of 1993 as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in Writ Petition No. 276 of 1993 and has prayed that the show cause notice dated 21st November, 1992 and proceedings before the concerned authorities in Chapter Case No. 7 of 1992.
3. I have heard Mr. Sabnis, appearing for the petitioners in the first matter, so also the learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State. I have also perused the proceedings in both the writ petitions. It appears that some bickerings are going on between the parties and some minor allegations of assault, harassment and damaging kitchen are made by parties against each other. It appears that there are complaints and cross complaints filed by both the parties against each other at Gamdevi Police Station. It is also revealed that the nature of these complaints is trivial and they are recorded as non-cognizable complaints. It is apparent that the relationship between the parties is strained and there appears to be some personal background to this. It appears that these parties are harbouring feeling of vendetta against each other and are taking help of the Police to avenge each other.
4. Mr. Sabnis appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 58 of 1993 submitted that though minor incidents of assault, quarrel over distribution of water from common tap, damaging kitchen etc. might have taken place, all these incidents are of trivial nature and that this trivial nature of the complaints is evident by the fact that these complaints are lodged at the Police Station and are noted down in the N.C. Register. He submitted that the powers vested in the Executive Magistrate under sections 108, 109, 110 and 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised only in the case of serious nature and not in the case involved in trivial quarrel and certainly not to be used as a vehicle for private vendetta, as is the case in the present matter. He submitted that there is no real threat to breach of peace and there is no likelihood at all of grave consequence being followed and, therefore, the impugned notice could not have been issued by the concerned authorities.
5. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 16th July, 1985 (Coram : D.N. Mehta, J.) in Criminal Application No. 1015 of 1983, where the learned Judge has specifically laid down that the above-mentioned sections which are in common parlance known as ‘chapter proceedings’ are not to be used as a vehicle for private vendetta. I find force in the submission of Mr. Sabnis. Hence the following order :
Both the Writ Petitions are allowed in terms of prayer Clause (b). Rule accordingly made absolute. Interim stay dated 19th April, 1993 is hereby vacated.
6. Writ petition allowed.