Uttarakhand High Court
C482/941/2023 on 16 May, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No. 941 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Nirdesh Khandelwal, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Mr. Pratiroop Pande, A.G.A., for the State of
Uttarakhand.
In this C-482 Application, the challenge as
given by the present applicants, is to the order
passed by the Magistrate on 28th January, 2023,
while exercising his powers under Sections 151,
107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C., whereby, under an
apprehension of there being any disturbance being
created by the present applicants, the Court has
passed a punitive order of furnishing of the bond of
Rs.20,000/- each in order to maintain peace and
tranquillity.
The said order of 28th January, 2023, has
been passed on the basis of the challani report
which was submitted by the police official under
Sections 151, 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C., wherein,
the police authority has observed, that after
conducting an inquiry on the complaint submitted,
it was found that there was a possibility of breach
of peace and tranquillity, and thus, it was
recommended to the Magistrate to pass an
appropriate order on the basis of the report, due to
which, the Magistrate has passed an order on 28th
January, 2023, only directing the parties to maintain
peace and tranquillity as it has been observed in the
impugned order.
The learned counsel for the applicants
submits, that in fact, this order, which has been
passed, in fact, may have a superseding effect to the
injunction order, which has been passed by the
learned Trial Court in Suit No. 25 of 2022, DTC
India Ltd. Vs. Dhanpatiya and others.
So far as the injunction order is concerned,
that has been passed in a Suit preferred by DTC
Company, and not by the present applicants, but
still, looking to the order passed for the grant of
temporary injunction, it has been at the stage, when
the notices have been issued to the defendant under
order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC, where the parties have
been directed not to create any third party interest.
The said injunction order cannot be read in nexus to
the proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of the
Cr.P.C.
Since the order impugned is only a
preventive order as contemplated by the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (1994) 1
SCC 471, Prakash Chand Sachdeva Vs. State
and another, and no prejudice as such has been
caused to the present applicants, nor would it be
having any adverse bearing on the civil
proceedings, which has to be independently decided
on merits, this Court is of the view, that since no
prejudice as on date is caused to the present
applicants, the orders passed by the Magistrate on
an executive side while exercising powers under
Sections 107 and 111 of the Cr.P.C. do not call for
any interference while exercising my power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., because the impugned
orders passed which are presently under challenge
before this Court are not an abuse of process, but
rather preventing an abuse of process of law.
Hence, the C-482 Application lacks merit
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 16.05.2023
Shiv
