Smt. Sana Nadim Pawaskar And Mr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra
2003 Latest Caselaw 212 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. Heard both the Advocates. The petitioner No. 1, who happens to be a teacher and petitioner No. 2, who happens to be her husband are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the show cause notice issued to them by Special Executive Magistrate, Dongri Region, Mumbai, in view of provisions of Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience). Shri Ghogre, Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate did not follow the spirit of the enactment and without applying judicial mind, misused the said notice, which needs to be quashed. He further, submitted that the leaned Magistrate has taken the notice of domestic quarrels and decided to ask the petitioner to execute the bond. Therefore, on this ground also the said notice needs to be quashed.

2. Shri Saste made his best to justify the said order.

3. Whenever, a Magistrate decides to issue a notice in view of provisions of Section 111 of the Code, he has to give sufficient idea to the petitioner for knowing the exact nature of apprehension, which is lingering in the mind of the Magistrate in respect of the possibility of breach of public peace. Those instances should be serious enough to really cause a threat to the public tranquillity. Domestic quarrels are common with human beings, because on account of conflict of personalities, there are bound to be bickering and disputes. Those disputes can be settled in the domestic domain and they generally do not cause any danger to the public peace as such.

4. In the present case, the two instances which have been quoted are petty matters and they show by themselves that they are nothing but domestic differences of opinion. The learned Magistrate has also apprehension that on account of inter - religion marriage between both the petitioners, there would be breach of public peace. It appears to be a timid apprehension. Unless there are compelling grounds and unless there is sufficient material on record to justify such apprehension, the Magistrate should not take any cognizance of the inter religion marriage by itself as a ground for breach of public case. Now the society has learnt to tolerate such marriages. The spreading education and interaction between the members of society has made the members of public to adjust themselves in respect of such inter religion marriages. The Magistrate should not be touchy about it. on the contrary, if such proceedings are initiated that is likely to give a provocation in the mind of persons who would be aggrieved. Such proceedings would create bleeding injuries in the minds of the persons - who are docile and therefore, would create communal clash. The notice is nothing but a cyclostyled form and blanks have been filled in by the clerk from the office of the learned Magistrate, because his signature is different from such writing which filled in gaps. While issuing a notice under Section 111 of the Code, the Magistrate is obliged to a judicial performance as the said act is judicial work and therefore, he has to apply judicial and such order should not be issued, as if they are outcome of mechanical process.

5. As the learned Magistrate has not followed the spirit of provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code, the order which has been assailed will have to be set aside. Thus, petition stands allowed. The show cause notice which has been issued by the Special Executive Magistrate, Dongri Region. Mumbai dated 14/10/2002 stands quashed with no order as to costs. The Magistrate would be entitled to take appropriate action if situation demands but that should be on compelling grounds.

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