2000 P Cr (PLP)

By this criminal miscellaneous application, the applicant Muhammad Shakeel has sought quashment of proceedings under sections 107, 151, Cr.P.C. pending against him before the learned S.D.M., City Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the report under sections 107, 151, Cr.P.C. submitted by S.H.O./S.I.P, Haji Javed of Police Station City Hyderabad before learned S.D.M., Hyderabad on 29-12-1999, are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "It is submitted that aforesaid respondent is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. On 28-12-1999, S.I.P. Haji .laved alongwith his staff was on patrolling duty when the aforesaid petitioner was raising hue and cry on the road and was stopping the passersby in order to block the road near Bombay Hotel Fakir Jo Pir. Apprehending breach of peace, he was arrested under sections 107, 151, Cr.P.C. The respondent was produced before me and I also interrogated him." The S.H.O. simultaneously, moved another application under section 117, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, wherein it was stated that the applicant is well-known dealer of explosive substance (Atish Bazi). He on Dewali and Shab-e-Barat etc. used to supply the explosive substances (Atish Bazi). The new millennium is near. There is possibility that applicant may supply the explosive substance (Atish Bazi), therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. Moreover no person from public is prepared to give. evidence against him. On receipt of above reports the learned Magistrate passed the order under section 112, Cr.P.C. on 29-12-1999, whereby applicant was directed to enter into bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with solvent sureties, each solvent in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) for maintaining peace and to control the activities of the applicant for a period of 12 months. Simultaneously on the same day order under section 117(3), Cr.P.C. was passed by the learned. Magistrate whereby the applicant was directed to execute a security bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) for maintaining the peace and to control -the activities of the applicant till the completion of enquiry under sections 107, 151, Cr.P.C. and applicant was remanded to custody. I have heard Mr. Nandan A. Kella, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Khanzada learned counsel on behalf of the Advocate General for the State. The latter conceded to the quashment of the proceedings. I have also perused the material placed on record as well as record and proceedings of the trial Court. The perusal of record shows that the contents . of report under sections 107, 151, Cr.P.C. reproduced hereinabove are quite different and in complete contradiction to the contents of the application under section 117(3), Cr.P.C. It appears that the learned Magistrate acted in haste without applying his judicial mind to the contents of report under sections 107, 151, Cr.P.C. as well as report under section 117, Cr.P.C. The order under section 117(3), Cr.P.C. was passed by the learned Magistrate without recording the evidence of any witness, which is contrary to law. The proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are not penal but punitive in nature. The Courts are sanctuaries of the liberty of the citizens and they are not supposed to act on the ipse dixit of police. They should be doubly conscious before taking any action upon such reports. The bare possibility of breach of the peace is not enough to justify proceedings under this section, there must be at least a reasonable probability of such breach.. Where the evidence on the record neither discloses any breach that has already occurred or any probability that it is likely to occur but only makes vague surmises of such possibility, the proceedings taken under the section are liable to be quashed. In this context, I am fortified by the decisions reported in the case of N. Reemes and 2 others v. The State and. another 1980 PCr.LI 126 and 3 Shome LR

37. Consequently, the proceedings initiated on police report and' cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is nullity in the eye of law and are hereby quashed. The applicant is on bail, his bail bond stands discharged. N.H.Q./M-52/K Proceedings quashed.