Satruhan Jha and Others vs The State

K. Sahai, J.—These two applications arise out of two counter proceedings. The proceeding against Satruhan Jha and others (who will hereinafter be referred to as the Jha group) is numbered as T. R. No. 137 of 1963. Criminal Revn. No. 1013 of 1963 arises out of that proceeding. The proceeding against Chandeshwar Thakur and others (who will hereinafter be referred to as the Thakur group) is numbered as T. R. No. 70 of 1964. Criminal Revision No. 48 of 1964 arises out of that proceeding. Both proceedings are pending in the Court of Shri Maheshwar Prasad, Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani. On the 27th November, 1962, the learned Magistrate passed orders in both cases, directing the persons proceeded against to furnish ad interim bonds for Rs. 1,000/- each with one surety of like amount each u/s 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for keeping the peace during the pendency of the proceedings u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Criminal Revision No. 1013 of 1963:

Members of the Jha group are the petitioners in this case. Appearing on their behalf, Mr. Tarakant Jha has argued that there was no material before the Magistrate on the basis of which he could pass the impugned order u/s 117(3) against the petitioners. It appears that these petitioners filed petitions for action u/s 117(3) against the Thakur group in the counter proceeding, i.e., T. R. No. 70 of 1964. The Magistrate sent the matter for enquiry to the police, and the police report shows that the allegations were correct. They recommended for action against the Thakur group in T. R. No. 70 of 1964 u/s 117(3). While passing orders against the Thakur group the learned Magistrate has passed a similar order against the petitioners also.

The question which requires consideration is whether the order passed in this case is correct in law. Mr. Jha admits that both the proceedings u/s 107 were started against the two parties on account of a land dispute between them. It is well established that, when there is a bona fide land dispute between the parties, a proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be started against them, but the Magistrate has discretion, if he so desires, to start proceedings u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against both parties. This is based upon the principle that, if such a proceeding is drawn up against only one party, that party will be placed in a disadvantageous position as against the other party. I think that a similar principle should apply in the case of ad interim orders u/s 117(3) of the Code because, if an order under that sub-section is passed only against one party, that party, will necessarily be put under a great disadvantage as against the other party. That being so, it is obviously appropriate that, if an order u/s 117(3) is passed for execution of interim bonds, it should be passed against both parties, if there are proceedings u/s 107 against both, unless there is no ground at all for an order under that sub-section against one of the parties. Generally, it will be rare to find such an exceptional case where the land dispute between the parties is bona fide.

In the present case, the learned Magistrate has recorded the finding that there is mounting tension between the parties. He has arrived at this finding on the basis of the allegation, supported by the police, that the Thakur group have been doing overt acts against the Jha group. The Magistrate''s reasoning appears to be that, if one party is acting against the other, the other party must also be acting similarly. I am unable to say that this is unreasonable. This, in my opinion, furnishes good material for the order which the Magistrate has passed against the petitioners in this case. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

Criminal Revision No. 48 of 1964:

Members of the Thakur group are the petitioners in this case. As I have already mentioned, there are not only the allegations of the Jha group but also the report of the police showing that the petitioners'' acts are likely to result in a breach of the peace. The order for execution of interim bonds against the petitioners u/s 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, fully justified. This application is also dismissed.