( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482" Code of Criminal Proceedure (hereinafter referred to as. the Code), raises some important questions of law. However, the facts giving rise to it lie in a narrow compass.

( 2 ) ON 4th July 1983, the petitioner, his wife Smt. Malti Devi, the tenant of the petitioner Ramesh Chand and his wife Smt. Bhagwati Devi Were arrested by SI Bachan Singh of Police Station Sultan Pari under Section 93 read with Section 97 of the Delhi Police Act (for short the Act ). It was alleged that the petitioner and his wife on the one hand and Ramesh Chand and his wife on the other were indulging in abusive language and were fighting with each other in a public street and they would not desisc from doing so despite intervention by the people residing in the Mohalla and even the police. They were produced before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on that very day and were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 500. 00 each. A report termed by the police as kalendra under Section 93/97 was also filed by the police on the same date. They were directed to present themselves again in Court on 20th August 1983. The case was then adjourned from time to time on one or the other ground and proceedings could not be commenced uptil 10th February 1984 when the case was again adjourned to 30th April 1984. Thereupon the petitioner challenged the institution of the criminal proceedings against him in revision but the same was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 3rd May 1984 on the short ground that he had not filed the certified copies of the various orders which had been called in question, within time. Hence, this petition under Section 482.

( 3 ) THE chief contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the so called kalendra filed by the police against him and other accused which strangely enough comprise both the rival parties is neither a police report within the meaning of Section 173 (2) nor a complaint as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Code and as such the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence either under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 190 of the Code So, the first question which falls for determina- tion is whether the offence in question is cognizable or not. Section 93 of the Act deals with the offence of misbehaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. It reads as under :

"no person shall use in any street or public place any threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned. "

( 4 ) IT may be noticed on the plain language of this Section that the culpability arises only if the misbehaviour mentioned in the Section takes place in any street or public place but not otherwise. Section 97 prescribes penalty for the offence under Sections 80 to 96 which, inter alia, includes offence under Section 93. The offender on conviction is liable to be punished with a fine which may extend to Rs. 100. 00 or in default of payment of fine with imprisonment for a term not exceeding eight days.

( 5 ) SECTION 59 which occurs in Chapter VI of the Act and deals with the executive duties and powers of police officers provides that :

"59. Duty of police officer to enforce provisions of the Act (1 ). It shall be the duty of every police officer to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act or any rule, regulation or order made thereunder and for that purpose such police officer may, (a) warn persona who from ignorance fail to comply with any provision of this Act or any rule, regulation or order made thereunder; (b) require any person acting or about to act contrary to any provision of this Act or rule, regulation or order made thereunder to desist from so doing ; (c) subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3), arrest any person contravening any provision of this Act or any rule, regulation or order made thereunder,