IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI.
Cr. Rev. No. 432 of 2009
1.Bhatu Sao
2.Lambu Sao @Baleshwar Sao
3.Sahdeo Sao
4.Shambhu Sao
5 Gautam Sao
6.Ajay Sao
7.Deepak Sao @ Deepak Kumar
8.Rajeshwar Sao
9.Shivam@ Shivan Sao
11.Dhaneshwar Sao
11. Maneshwar Sao
12. Jamuna Sao ..................................................... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Dayamanti Devi .................................................Opp. Parties.
Coram :- Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Sinha
For the Petitioners :-M/s Amarendra Kumar
Sanjay Kumar Saraswat
For the O.P. No.2 :- Mr. R.A. Gupta
For the State :- A.P.P.
4/11.11.2009
. 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.P.C. 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 Dayamanati 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.P.C. 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.P.C. 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
2
behaviour. On receipt of the notices the parties entered appearance
before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Ramarh and filed there
respective “show causes”. Having received the same the learned
S.D.M. 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 petitioners have assailed the impugned
order recorded by the Sessions Judge on the limited grounds that
the dispute in question between the parties was of civil nature to
which the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that if at all
any proceeding under the facts and circumstances was required
between the parties, it were under section 144 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. The learned counsel pointed out that the notices issued
to the petitioners under section 113 of Cr.P.C. were vague and for
such reason the order passed by the Executive Magistrate calling
upon to execute bonds should have been dismissed in Appeal.
The statement of the first party’s witness No.2 Rohan Sao was
ignored by the learned Executive Magistrate as also by the learned
Sessions Judge in appeal who clearly deposed that the tension was
no longer prevailing between the parties and they were living in
peace and harmony and therefore, the proceeding ought to have
been dropped.
4. 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 the
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. P.C.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and on perusal
on records I find that the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh on
3
scrutiny of the evidence and police report has affirmed the order
passed by the Executive Magistrate Ramgarh recorded in a
proceeding under section 107 of Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the
petitioners that the appellate court failed to consider the facts
and circumstances of the case in proper perspective. The first
party to the proceeding i.e. the O.P.No.2 herein is said to be an
old lady aged about 70 years who was obstructed by the
petitioners while she was raising boundary wall. On the
recommendation of the police the learned S.D.M. Ramgarh took
preventive action to avoid imminent breach of peace between the
parties. I observe that under the facts and circumstances the
consistent finding of the courts were sufficient to call for the
petitioners to execute bonds in the manner indicated in the
impugned order of the Executive Magistrate . I appreciate the reply
advanced on behalf of the O.P. No.2 that the proceeding under
section 107 of Cr.P.C. cannot be equated with a regular trial where
evidence is weighed strictly in accordance with Evidence Act. The
report of the police was nothing but a source of information that
was called for by the SDM Ramgarh and having been satisfied
with such report the learned Executive Magistrate took initiative by
initiating a proceeding under section 107 of Cr.P.C. The police
report was not required to be proved strictly and exhibited as
proceeding under section 107 of Cr.P.C. is quashi criminal
proceeding in nature.
6. For the reasons stated above I do not find any merit
in this Criminal Revision application, accordingly, it is dismissed and
the orders impugned passed by the courts below are affirmed .
(D.K.Sinha, J)
SD