( 1 ) THIS is a petition for quashing of the FIR no. 272/2001 registered at P. S. R. K. Puram under Sections 451, 323, 506, 509, 34 IPC arising out of disputes between the two neighbours, staying in the same premises. The complainant lodged a report that his wife and daughter were coming out for some work and after they came out of the house, the respondent Ashish Gosain was standing outside along with his driver and on seeing his daughter and wife started passing obscene comments. On hearing the noise he came outside the house and tried to stop them but both of them started beating him. They then forcibly entered his house and manhandled him. On seeing this his son telephoned the Police who reached there and registered the case under Sections 451, 323, 506, 509 read with 34 IPC.

( 2 ) SINCE they have now amicably settled the disputes as according to the complainant due to some misunderstanding and on hearing the noise from outside he got infuriated and confronted the petitioner ensuing in scuffle and lodged the report, now they want to live in peace being immediate neighbours. As is apparent no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings as it will not only further their enmity but also harm their future relations as they are living in the same premises and have to face each other everyday. Petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.

( 3 ) HOWEVER before parting I feel constrained to refer to the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the Notification no. 232-Home dated 11. 01. 1933 issued under Section 10 of Criminal Amendment Act of 1932 by the then Chief Commissioner of Delhi, which made the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC "cognizable" and "non-bailable" though Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 categorized this offence "non-cognizable" and "bailable" has outlived its utility and is operating against the law legislated by the Parliament by way of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 repealing the old Code of 1898 as Code of 1973 has also categorized this offence as "non-cognizable" and "bailable" and, therefore is liable to be quashed as in the instant case every other offence was bailable but petitioner was arrested and sent to jail because of the said notification making the offence under Section 506 IPC "cognizable" and "non-bailable".

( 4 ) HAVING had a vast and wide experience in administering criminal justice, this Court is in complete agreement with the counsel for the petitioner as it has come across hundreds of cases where the substantial offences are such which are "non-cognizable" and "bailable" that the police incorporates an offence under Section 506 IPC on bald statement of the complainant that he had been threatened by the accused without specifying whether it falls within part I or part II as part I prescribes two years sentence or fine while part II prescribes seven years or fine. Having once registered the FIR for the offence under Section 506 IPC Police empowers itself to arrest the offender and send him to jail as in that case he cannot be released unless he approaches the Court for seeking bail which at times is not allowed.

( 5 ) IT was after about 45 years of the operation of the Crpc of 1898 that Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1932 was brought on the statute book that empowered the State Government to make certain offences "cognizable" and "non-bailable"which were prescribed as "non-cognizable" and "bailable" by way of issuing notification in the Official Gazette. Most of these offences related to obstructing a public servant in the discharge of public functions, disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant, a threat of injury to public servant. Notification was issued mainly for the protection of public servants and to prevent participation of public at large in civil disobedience movement and punish those who dared defy the public servants Offence of "criminal intimidation" as e