Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for quashing the order dated 30th of April, 1979, annexure P -5, passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Jagadhari, by which on a complaint under sections 107/151 of the Code the learned Magistrate had issued an order against the petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound down for maintaining peace for one year with a personal bond of Rs. 5, 000/ - and one surety in the same amount, each.
(2.) SHRI S.M. Hooda, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that the mandatory provisions of neither section 107 nor section 111 of the Code have been complied with by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order. It will be useful to reproduce below the two sections in order to appreciate the argument: - 107(1): When an Executive magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to can any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground/or proceeding he may in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the magistrate thinks fit. (2) - - - - - - - - (sic) When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any parson to show cause under such lection, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the 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. A reading of these two provisions clearly shows that for taking action under section 107 of the Code, the learned Magistrate has to form an opinion that sufficient ground for proceeding under this section is made cut for maintaining peace and public tranquility and after he forms this opinion he has to make an order under section 111 of the Coda which order has to state the substance of the information received on which such opinion is formed. After these two requirements are fulfilled, then the procedure contained in sections 112 to 116 of the Code has to be followed and if he comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to keep the peace or maintain good behaviour, then he is to issue a final order under section 117 of the Code for directing the persons in respect of whom the inquiry is made for executing bonds with or without sureties for doing the needful. After I have interpreted the aforesaid provisions, as indicated, above, it will be useful to refer to the impugned order which is as follows: - From the evidence produced by the complainant, the complainant apprehends breach of the peace by the respondents. Therefore, all the respondents are issued notices to show cause why they should not be bound down for maintaining peace for a period of one year with personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/ -, with one surety in the like amount each The notices be issued for 25th April, 1979 Process fee be deposited. A reading of the aforesaid order shows that the learned Magistrate has not formed any opinion on the material placed before him nor has he set forth in the order the substance of the information received on which he was supposed to have formed his opinion. Hence the impugned order lacks in both the mandatory particulars and, therefore, is unsustainable.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the State, after reading sections 107 and 111 of the Code, was fair enough to concede that in view thereof, the impugned order cannot be sustained and prayed that this Court may direct the learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law keeping in view the interpretation made above but Shri D.N. Tanwar, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, opposed the petition both on merits as well as on a preliminary objection. His preliminary objection is that since a revision is competent against the impugned order before the Sessions Judge, therefore, no petition under section 482 of the Code is competent before this Court. I am not impressed with this preliminary objection as the same has no merit whatsoever A leading of section 397 (2) of the Code would show that no revision is competent from an interlocutory order. The order annexure (sic) is at best an interlocutory order and as such no revision is competent in view of the bar created by section 397 (2) of the Code Faced with this situation, Mr. Tanwar proceeded to argue that if revision is rot competent, then a petition under section 482 of the Code is also not competent. This matter has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 74, wherein it has clearly been held that if no revision flies, the petition under section 482 of the Code is competent but a word of caution has been added that the inherent power should be exercised sparingly. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel is also not acceptable in view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision. I find the present case to be one where the inherent power of the High Court should be exercised to nip the evil in the bud as the petitioners are sought to be proceeded against on the basis of an order which is not sustainable under law as already indicated above.;