Shri Noor Hasan Abdul Shaikh And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2003 Latest Caselaw 476 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. The petitioner are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Crime Branch (Preventive), Santacruz (W) Mumbai. The petitioners have been directed by the said Special Executive magistrate to appear before him on 21/7/1993 at 11 a.m. and to show cause as to why they should not execute a bond of maintaining the peace for a period of one year with security bond of Rs. 1000/- and two sureties of equal amount. It was alleged in the said notice that the petitioners were abusing Afsar Husain Zaidi verbally and on telephone on flimsy grounds and were threatening him. Not only that, it has been alleged in the said notice that the petitioners threatened and abused Afsar Zaidi and his family members at odd hours of night. It was pointed out in the said notice that the said Mohammed Afsar Zaidi and his family members at odd hours of night. It was pointed out in the said notice that the said Mohammed Afsar Zaidi happened to be the Chairman of concerned Society and he had asked the petitioners to demolish the unauthorised construction. On 21/5/1993 at 9.35 a.m. petitioner gave abuses to him. The cause for said abuses was shown to have been the prohibition form said Zaidi to the petitioners from drilling. The second instance quoted was of 18/5/1993 at 9.30 p.m. when according to the allegations in the said notice, the petitioners were obstructed by said Zaidi when they were taking possession of a shop. Such behaviour of petitioner would in all probability would create a cause for breach of peace. In that context also the allegations made in the notice shows that the petitioners abused and threatened said Zaidi. In the said petition it was pointed out that the learned Executive Magistrate had received a report from the concerned Police Station which showed that there was likelihood of breach of peace from the side of the petitioners.

2. Chapter VIII of Code authorises the Magistrate to take appropriate steps for preventing a person from committing breach of public peace. He is authorised to issue a notice as contemplated by Section 111 of the Code. It also authorises him to take necessary steps as contemplated by the provisions of Section 116 of Code. In view of that, if the present show cause notice is seen, this Court does not find any incorrectness or illegality in it. The learned Magistrate is entitled to have his full satisfaction for coming to the conclusion whether the behavior of the persons to whom such notices are sent are likely to commit the breach of public peace and thereby are likely to disturb the public tranquility. Higher Courts are to see whether the learned Magistrate has exercised the powers conferred on him by provisions of Code properly, correctly, reasonably and legally. in present case the action taken by the learned Magistrate is in accordance with Section 111 of the Code. There is sufficient material for him to go for such action. This Court finds no ground for interference. Thus, petition stands dismissed.

The Parties concerned to act on a simple copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Stenographer/Shristedar of this Court.