CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1993) 10 P&H CK 0077

Jai Narain and anr. vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 15 October 1993 · Citation: (1994) 1 AICLR 139 : (1994) 1 Crimes 394 : (1994) 1 RCR(Criminal) 128

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S.Chahal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9816-M of 1993

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 365 words

G.S. Chahal, J.

1.

Jai Narain and Roshni Devi have come In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Calendra DD No. 30 dated June 14, 1993 in proceedings under Sections 41(2) and 109 Cr.P.C. relating to P.S. Sadar, Panipat.

2.

Jai Narain petitioner 1 is working as a PTI in, Government High School, Kumar, Panipat, while Roshni Devi is an employee of Haryana Agricultural Department, Panipat. On June 14, 1993, Ranjit Kumar ASI overpowered both the petitioners near the Bridge, Jijulapur Drain while they were under the influence of liquor and were preparing for some entertainment. They were then produced before the Sub Inspector and on the basis that they were under the influence of liquor and tried to commit some offence, proceedings were initiated.

3.

Section 109 of the Code which it relevant, provides as follows " 109, Security for good behaviour from suspended persons When (an Executive Magistrate) receives information that there is within his local Jurisdiction a person taking precautions to conceal his presence and that there is reason to believe that he is doing so with a view to committing a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit."

This section was incorporated to be utilised as a preventive measure against persons who are found at a place where they do not have their normal abode and a suspicion arises of their concealing their presence for commission of an offence. The use of this section to arrest a man and a woman who had taken liquor and wanted to have some mutual entertainment was probably not ever warranted. To say the least, it will be misuse of this section. The mere fact that these two persons were indiscreet in the matter of their enjoyment cannot make their action to be one of reparation for commission of an offence.

4.

I hereby accept the petition and quash the Calendra Annexure PI along with all consequent proceedings. This petition stands disposed of.