Shivraj Wamanrao Mohod v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- A P BHANGALE
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 110, 110(a), 111, 116(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 353, 448, 504, 506
- Representation of the People Act, 1951 s. 132
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Question as to whether the petitioner is falling within the ambit of relevant provisions under Section 110(e) and (g) of the Cr.P.C. is not to be prejudged at this stage when only interim bond has been executed by the petitioner in the impugned proceedings.…
Judgment
25/2/2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has challenged the action of issuance of notice by filing this petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the ruling in the case of Lalookhan Haideralikhan v. M. M. Kamble reported in 1996 CRI. L. J. 801. This Court has observed, in the facts and circumstances of that case, that the show-cause notice did not say that the crimes registered against the petitioner ended in conviction. The Court expressed its opinion that Section 110(a) of the Cr.P.C. can only be attracted when a person is proved by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief or forgerer by habit or receiver of stolen property. The proof will only be available after the petitioner is found guilty of the charge levelled against him. It is further observed that the object of the proceedings under this section is prevention and not punishment for offences. Learned Advocate for the .....3/- wp144.2012.odt 3 petitioner also made a reference to the ruling in the case of Jaywant Gabaji Tambe vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 3062, wherein this Court had considered the order passed under Section 110(e) and (g) of Cr.P.C. After considering the relevant provisions, it was observed that when the Executive Magistrate receives information about a person who habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, the Magistrate may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
According to learned Advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner has already executed bonds at interim stage on 25/2/2012 and, the proceedings are still continued in the Court of Executive Magistrate. It is submitted that registration of Chapter Case against the petitioner is total abuse of process of law because mere registration of offence is not sufficient to invoke power .....4/- wp144.2012.odt 4 under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. In other words, it is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that a person against whom such an order is proposed must have been punished for the offence for which he was charged. Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Executive Magistrate to obtain the security for good behaviour from certain persons falling within clauses (e) and (g) of Section 110 of the Cr.P.C.
Operative part
Question as to whether the petitioner is falling within the ambit of relevant provisions under Section 110(e) and (g) of the Cr.P.C. is not to be prejudged at this stage when only interim bond has been executed by the petitioner in the impugned proceedings. It is submitted that the chapter proceedings are still pending. That being so, the impugned order directing the petitioner to execute interim bond appears to be premature because learned Special Executive Magistrate would have no jurisdiction to pass such an order without any inquiry and unless he finds material on record to show that such person is in the habit of committing such acts under Section 110(e) and (g) of the Cr.P.C. after the commencement of inquiry in view of .....5/- wp144.2012.odt 5 Section 116(3) of Cr.P.C. even in case of urgency. Therefore, impugned order whereby the petitioner was directed to execute interim bond is set aside. The Special Executive Magistrate shall proceed with an inquiry if necessary in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Punde ...../-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 110, 110(a), 111, 116(3); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 353, 448, 504, 506; Representation of the People Act, 1951 — s. 132.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.