T.N.R. Tirumalpad, J.C.
1. This is a revision against the order of the S. D. M., I. W. and Bishenpur, dated 13-8-1962, directing the petitioners to execute an interim bond for Rs. 500/- each with one surety for like sum for maintaining the peace during the pendency of the enquiry Under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code against them. The petitioners pray that the said order may be set aside and further that the proceedings against them Under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code may also be quashed as it was clearly not a case where they should have been proceeded against under the said section.
2. The first respondent herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate on 6-7-rg62, stating that the land in question was purchased by him on 16-2-1955 under a registered sale-deed and that he has been in possession and enjovment of the same through one Thingbaijam Tbochouba Singh. He also said that he fiied a suit T. S. No 61 of 1961, against the petitioners 1 and 2, which was pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court for a permanent injunction retraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession He further said that the petitioners were attempting to disturb his possession and that a breach of the peace was Hecht and he praved for action Under Section T07 Criminal Procedure Code. This complaint was tent for a Police report by the Magistrate and the Police reported on 10.-7-7062 that the first respondent had purchased the land under a registered deed, that the mutation was allowed by the Settlement Officer on 19-6-1962 and that petitioners were in possession of the it was learnt from the witnesses that the petitioners had entered the said land and continued to cultivate the said land. He further said that the petitioners when questioned said that they have been in possessions of. the said land after purchasing the tame in Court auction and that they have ploughed said that learned the said land. The Police Officer further an injunction order was issued by the subordinate Judge against the petitioners restraining them irony interfering with the possession of the complainant.
3. On this Police report, the Magistrate started proceedings against the petitioners Under Section 107 ; Criminal procedures Code. The petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and on 13-8-1962, they filed written statement. In the said written statement they poiated out that the land in question was purchased by petitioner 1 in public auction through Court in execution of the decree in Suit No. 1 of 1957 in the Court of the Subordinate Judged, against one Thingliaijam Aro Singh, the owner of the land, who was none other than the matehial uncle of the first respondent and was taken possession of, that they have been in possession and I cultivating the same and that there was no occasion for breach of the peace. They further said that) the first respondent in collusion with his maternal I uncle filed T. S. No. 61 of 1961 and applied for temporary injunction, that the said application I was rejected on 22-2-1962, on the ground that the first petitioner was in possession of the land and that the present petition for action Under Section 1I07 Criminal Procedure Code was filed long after the; dismissal of the injunction petition. In. spite of this written statement, the Magistrate directed this petitioners to give interim bonds Under Section it 17 (3) Criminal Procedure Code. It is against this order as well as against the proceedings starred against the petitioners Under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code that this revision was filled. The petitioners applied to the Sessions Judge in ire vision. But the Sessions Judge summarily rejected their petition simply stating that there was no force in the petition.
4. This is again another instance of the abuse of Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code by this Magistrate. It was clearly a dispute about the possession of land and the matter was pending decision in the Civil Court. The fact that the matter was pending in the Civil Court between the parties was also brought in the notice of this Magistrate. In such circumstances, the Magistrate should be very careful in starting proceedings under the security sections and be must have very strong evidence that a breach of the peace was likely before he. can start any proceedings. The first respondent did not state in his complaint that he had Obtained any temporary injunction from Court. It was the Police Officer who stated in his report that a temporary injunction in favour of the first respondent was given by the Subordinate Judge. It is clear that the Police Officer did not see the injunction order before he mentioned it in his report. The petitioners had pointed out that the application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on 22-2-1962, that is, long before the complaint was filed in July, 1962, and that too on the ground that the such circumstances, it was the duty of the Magistrate to have directed the fir-t respondent to produce a copy of the injunction order before he even started the proceedings Under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code. If there was no injunction order, but on the ether hand if the applicator n for injunction had been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the petitioners were in possession, it will be nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court for the first respondent to come forward with an application Under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code.
5. It is because there are such obliging Magistrates who would start security proceedings on thoroughly insufficient, grounds that such applications which are clear abuses of the process of the Court are filed in the Magistrates' Court. The Magistrate should, not have proceeded mechanically when oh an application was filed. It was his duty to have verified the fact of possession before he started personal proceedings Under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners only. He has to be satisfied that the first respondent was in possession beyond any doubt, and that the petitioners by their wrongful conduct were attempting to interfere witli the said possession thereby creating a breach of the peace. There was no such evidence before the Magistrate in the present case. The Magistrate has to be specially careful when he came to know that the matter of possession was pending in the Civil Court. In such a case, he must have very positive evidence, that but for his interference there would be a breach of the peace before he could proceed Under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code or Section 145, Cri- j minal Procedure Code, There was no such evidence before this Magistrate and his starting of the proceeding was nothing but an abuse of the j process of the Court. Again, before he could direct the petitioners to give interim bonds Under Section 117 (3) Criminal Procedure Code, he must be satisfied that immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquillity or the commission of an offence- and he has to record by reasons in writing before he could direct the petitioners, to give interim bonds. I find that no reasons were recorded by this Magistrate. He seemed to have proceeded without applying his mind to the case and without trying to understand the contentions of the parties. The order of the Ma gistrate directing the petitioners to give interim bonds and again the very starting of the proceeding Under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be sustained. The said orders are accordingly quashed. I wish the learned Sessions Judge without summarily rejecting the revision petition before him had himself tried to understand the case of the parties. The revision petition' is allowed and the proceedings before the Magistrate arc quashed.