AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.10.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2017, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khagaria in Case No. 646(M) of 2017, directing the petitioners to furnish bond under Section 116(3) of Cr.P.C., was confirmed.
The proceeding was initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the Circle Officer, Alauli, alleging apprehension of breach of peace in connection with a dispute relating to possession over the land in question.
Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. is a preventive provision. It empowers an Executive Magistrate, upon receiving information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, to require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
In this connection it would be apposite to reproduce Section 107 of Cr.P.C., which is as under:-
107.Security for keeping the peace in other cases.—(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond 1[with or without sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2)Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
In the present case, the proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated in the year 2017 and the order under Section 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. was also passed on 13.06.2017. The order impugned before this Court arises out of the said preventive proceeding.
The very object of a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. is preventive in nature, namely, to prevent an apprehended breach of peace. The period for which an order under the said provision could operate is limited and cannot exceed one year. In the present case, the said period has long since expired.
Therefore, even if the impugned orders are examined on merits at this stage, no effective or fruitful purpose would be served, as the preventive proceeding has lost its efficacy by efflux of time. The question of possession or title over the land in dispute is also not required to be adjudicated in the present proceeding.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application has become infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of as such.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the title or possession of either party over the land in question. The parties shall be at liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law in respect of their dispute relating to the land.
TCR, if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment.