H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) On 21 -8 -1969, SDM Etawah made an order u/S. 107/112 CrPC and issued a notice to Asharfi and others to show cause why they should not be required to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace. Asharfi filed an application in revision before the Sessions Judge Etawah and contended that proceedings initiated by the Magistrate were without jurisdiction on following grounds: (1) The dispute between the parties related to immovable property and as such the present proceedings u/S. 107 CrPC were not competent. (2) Order made u/S. 112 CrPC was defective inasmuch as the substance of information received by the Magistrate was not mentioned in the order, and (3) The order made u/S. 112 CrPC was not served properly upon Asharfi and others. Learned Sessions Judge found that there was no defect in the order made u/S. 112 CrPC inasmuch as substance of information received by the Magistrate had been recorded, though briefly. He also held that there was no defect in serving Asharfi and others. According to him the record showed that out of four parties against whom proceedings were taken, two of them were present in court and the order made u/S. 112 CrPC was read over to them. Summons were directed to be issued along with copy of the order made u/S. 112 CrPC to the remaining parties. He accordingly repelled the second and third arguments raised by the revisionist.
(2.) On the first point learned Sessions Judge held that the police report which formed the basis of the proceedings showed that the apprehension of breach of peace was because of a dispute over possession over immovable property. Relying upon the decision in the case of Jafar Husain v/s. State (1969 AWR 199), he held that in the circumstances, appropriate provision under which action for preventing breach of peace should have been taken was S. 145 CrPC and the provision of S. 107 CrPC has no application. He accordingly made the present reference recommending that the impugned order dated 21st of August 1969 and all proceedings taken so far u/S. 107 CrPC be quashed and the Magistrate be directed to proceed u/S. 145 CrPC.
(3.) Substance of the police report as mentioned in the referring order shows that initially the dispute between the parties started over possession of certain land. Compromise was arrived at but the same was not acted upon. Relations between the parties became so strained that they were bent upon causing loss of life and property to each other. Unripe crop belonging to the second party was cut by the first party whereupon the second party was bent upon beating the first party. It was also stated that quarrel between the parties had proceeded to such an extent that each of them was bent upon causing loss of life to the other party. From the police report it is obvious that the dispute between the parties is no longer confined to possession over the land. It has traveled beyond this and the parties are now bent upon causing loss of life and property to each other irrespective of the fact as to which of them is in possession of the land in dispute. It is in this setting that the question whether action u/S. 107 CrPC can be taken is to be considered.;