SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Gau) 133

S.N.PHUKAN
Reena Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Mukti Mukharjee – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.K.Das, G.Kakati

Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are sisters and petitioner No. 3, their brother who was a Pilot of Indian Airlines, but due to an accident he could not continue flying. At present petitioner No. 3 is in business. It is stated that petitioners are residing at Gauhati City and opposite party is residing in his house adjacent to the house of the petitioners. In the month of May, petitioners received an order from the learned Executive Magistrate, Gauhati requiring them to execute a bond of Rs. 1000/- for keeping peace and tranquility in the area. The order was purportedly issued under 'Section 107 Cr. P. C. According to petitioners prior to issuance of the order, there was no incident and as such breach of public tranquility or peace by the petitioners cannot arise. Petitioners after obtaining copy of the impugned order has approached this Court for quashing the entire proceeding.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and according to learned counsel, the order was passed in complete disregard to the provisions contained in sections 107 & 111 Cr. P.C. and as such is liable to be quashed.

Section 107 Cr.P.C. finds place in Chapter VIII of the Code under the heading Security for Keepin









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top