Ram Niwas Yadav vs State of Haryana and another

Pritpal Singh, J.

Ram Niwas Yadav has petitioned under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called `the Code'') for quashing the complaint dated May 19, 1984 (Annexure P.1) made against him by Jaipal Singh, respondent No. 2 as also the order dated June 7, 1984, passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Rewari, Summoning the petitioner and the subsequent order dated August 1, 1984, of the Magistrate issuing bailable warrant against him.

Brief facts of this case are that Jaipal Singh, respondent No. 2, filed a complaint under section 107 of the Code against the petitioner, dated May 19,1984 in the Court of SubDivisional Magistrate, Rewari. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner wanted to hit his car against the car of respondent No. 2 to cause him physical injury and monitory loss but due to the tactful driving of the driver of respondent No. 2 the latter was saved. It was further alleged that after this incident the petitioners have threatened respondent No. 2 on various occasion with dire consequences. The SubDivisional Magistrate, on taking cognizance of the complaint, passed the following order :

"Today this application has been put up. Respondent be summoned for 29.6.1984.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of section 111 of the Code in passing the aforesaid order. the section reads as follows :

"When a Magistrate acting under section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110,deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of bond to be executed, the terms for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required."

A perusal of the above section makes it abundantly clear that if the Magistrate finds it necessary to require a person to show cause under section 107 of the Code he has to make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties, if any required. The impugned order passed by the Magistrate is surely not in conformity with section 111 of the Code. Thus, for violation of the provision of this section the aforesaid order cannot be sustained.

It is admitted between the parties that respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint under section 506, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid incident alleged to have taken place on May 3, 1984. In other words respondent No. 2 has not only initiated security proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the above referred incident but has also filed a separate complaint under section 506, Indian Penal Code. It was held in Aluva Balaihgari Chandra Reddy v. The Revenue Inspector Rajampet and another, 1980 CRI, L.J. 1169, by the Andhra Preadehs High Court, that on general principles of justice it may not be expedient to launch for same act one police investigation for projection in a regular criminal court to secure punishment and another proceedings for security in another court at one and the same time. It was observed that although such a cause does not strictly offend the rule of prohibition against double jeopardy, still, if a single act which is covered under provision of the Indian Penal Code is under investigation with regard to its truth it is but proper that the investigation is allowed to be completed and a trial of the same is allowed to take place so that, if the allegation is true and it causes an apprehension of future breach of public peace and tranquility, the court convicting, the offender may apply section 106 of the Code and take the necessary bond for security to keep the peace. Subscribing to this view I of am the opinion that the simultaneous launching of security proceedings as well as a complaint under section 506, Indian Penal Code, by respondent No. 2 for a solitary act is not proper. Thus, so far as the incident dated May 3, 1984 is concerned it is not proper to proceed against the petitioner under section 107 of the Code. Respondent No. 2 has further alleged in his complaint (Annexure P.1) that after the aforesaid incident the petitioner on various occasions had offered threats to his life. The Magistrate can take these allegations into consideration while passing an appropriate order under section 111 of the Code.

For these reasons the orders dated June 7, 1984 and August 1, 1984, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari, are quashed. The parties have been directed to appear before the Magistrate on 17.12.1984 for further proceedings on the complaint of respondent No. 2, in accordance with law in the light of above observations.

JUDGMENT accordingly.