Allowed

Kanchan Adhar Maiti v. the Special Executive Magistrate and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2017WP/468/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five writ petitioners challenged show cause notices issued under sections 107 and 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Special Executive Magistrate. The High Court quashed the notices, holding that the singular incident of a trivial altercation over demonetized notes did not justify the invocation of preventive measures to keep the peace.

What did the court decide?

The show cause notice dated December 31, 2016 issued under Section 107 and 111 of the Cr.P.C. is quashed and set aside.

Kanchan Adhar Maiti Vs the Special Executive… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

910 wp 468 to 473-17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 468 OF 2017

¶4

Kanchan Adhar Maiti .. Petitioner v/s.

¶5

The Special Executive Magistrate & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 469 OF 2017 Rohit Narayan Vishwas .. Petitioner v/s. The Special Executive Magistrate & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 470 OF 2017 Ramesh Basva Pujari .. Petitioner v/s. The Special Executive Magistrate & Ors. ..Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 471 OF 2017 Sajan Haque .. Petitioner v/s. The Special Executive Magistrate & Ors. ..Respondents

¶6

1 of 5

¶7

salgaonkar

¶8

910 wp 468 to 473-17.doc

¶9

WITH

¶10

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 472 OF 2017

¶11

Abhishek Chandrahas Shetty .. Petitioner

¶12

v/s.

¶13

The Special Executive Magistrate & Ors. ..Respondents

¶14

WITH

¶15

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 473 OF 2017

¶16

Vijay Phulo Mukhiya .. Petitioner

¶17

v/s.

¶18

The Special Executive Magistrate & Ors. ..Respondents

¶19

Mr. D.A. Nalawade i/b. Ravindra Lokhande for the Petitioners in all petitions. Mrs.A.S.Pail, APP for the Respondent-State in all petitions.

¶20

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 7^th APRIL, 2017.

¶21

P.C. :

¶22

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned

¶23

APP for the State. The above petitions are filed challenging the show

¶24

cause notice dated 31^st December, 2016 issued under Section 111 of

¶25

the Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of Court Proceeding No.

¶26

338 of 2016 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

2 of 5

¶28

salgaonkar

¶29

910 wp 468 to 473-17.doc

¶30

By the impugned notice the petitioners were called upon to

¶31

show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for an amount of Rs.5000/- for keeping peace for a period of one year.

¶32

The said notice has been issued only on the basis of registration of a FIR bearing C.R.No. 411 of 2016 with the Mahim Police Station, against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 141, 143, 147, 149, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶33

We have perused the First Information Report. The First Information Report reveals that the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 472 of 2017 is the owner, whereas the Petitioners in other writ petitions are the staff members of Hotel Ganga Vihar. On 10^th November, 2016 at about 10.30 p.m. four customers, including the complainant-first informant went to Hotel Ganga Vihar. After having meals, they went to the counter to make the payment. There was an altercation between the owner of the hotel and the customers, as he had refused to accept the notes of denomination of Rs.500/- in view

¶34

3 of 5

¶35

salgaonkar

¶36

910 wp 468 to 473-17.doc

¶37

of demonetization of the said notes from 9^th November, 2017. The FIR further reveals that the said altercation resulted in assault between both the parties.

¶38

The proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. are invoked on the basis of the sole incident that occurred on 10^th November, 2016. The said incident was basically a quarrel between two groups on nonacceptance of Rs.500/- notes. Suffice it to say that the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is only a preventive measure aimed at preserving public peace and tranquility. In the instant case, there was no material to indicate that the petitioners were likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility or do any wrongful act which was likely to disturb public peace and tranquility. On the contrary, the allegations in the FIR reveal that the incident in question had occurred in a hotel over the issue of non-acceptance of old notes of Rs.500/- denomination.

¶39

In our considered view, the provisions of Section 107 Cr.P.C.

¶40

could not have been invoked on the basis this sole incident of trivial

¶41

4 of 5

¶42

salgaonkar

¶43

910 wp 468 to 473-17.doc

¶44

nature. The Respondent No.1, in our considered view, has exceeded jurisdiction. The impugned notices, therefore, cannot sustain. The same are quashed and set aside. The petitions are accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶45

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶46

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶47

5 of 5

¶48

salgaonkar

Kanchan Adhar Maiti v. the Special Executive Magistrate and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Adhar Maiti v. the Special Executive Magistrate and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Malka Atkare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Uddhav Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jackie Mahesh Vora Vs the Commissioner of Police and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sagar Namdev Khade and Ors.

Rohit Narayan Vishwas Vs the Special Executive Magistrate and Anr.

Ramesh Basva Pujari Vs the Special Executive Magistrate and Anr.