Preventive proceedings under Section 126 BNSS inapplicable to private land disputes lacking threat to public tranquillity; Section 111 order invalid without detailing information substance, bond amount, period, and sureties.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition is directed against the order dated 30th January 2025, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Amb, District Una, H.P.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police filed a complaint under Sections 126 and 169 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against Darshan Singh and Parikshit Thakur. It was asserted that Parikshit Thakur and Darshan Singh had attacked the informant, Kamlesh Kumari, with a darat on 30th October 2024. They abused and threatened to kill her. The police conducted the investigation and found that the dispute pertained to taking the tractor through the field. The parties had sought 3–4 days to settle the dispute, but it remain unsolved. Darshan Singh has quarrelsome nature. He frequently abused the informant and her family members. They had an apprehension of danger from Darshan Singh; hence, it was prayed that action be taken against Darshan Singh and Parikshit Thakur.

3. Learned SDM held that a possibility of breach of peace existed; hence, he ordered that a notice be issued to the respondents to show cause why they should not be bound to keep peace for a period of six months without Surety in the sum of Rs.20,000 and listed he matter on 13th December 2014.

4. The matter was taken up on 30th January 2025, when the informant and Suman Kumari made separate statements. The informant, Kamlesh Kumari, stated that Arun Kumar, Raman Kant, Ajay Thakur, Mahindra Pal, and Krishan Kumar were also involved in the quarrel, and the informant apprehended danger from them. They also quarrelled with her and threatened to kill her. She and her son, Vinod Kumar, feared their lives. Suman Kumari also stated that Arun Kumar, Ramakant, Ajay Thakur, Mahinder Pal, and Krishan Kumar were involved in the quarrel. They quarrelled with her for no reason. She feared for her life from them. She resides in her home with her mother-in-law. She and her mother-in-law feared for their lives and prayed that action should be taken against the persons she named.

5. Learned SDM held that after careful examination of the statements, he believed that there was a possibility of breach of peace; hence, he ordered that notice under section 111 of BNSS, be issued to Ajay Thakur, Arun Kumar, Ramakant, Mahindra Pal and Krishan Paul, as per the addresses mentioned in the statements.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned SDM, the petitioner, Ajay Thakur, has filed the present petition for quashing it. It has been asserted that the order passed by the learned SDM, is without jurisdiction and arbitrary. Petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the complaint filed before the court. The police also did not find that the petitioner was involved in the incident. The petitioner's name was included on vague statements without any preliminary enquiry. The matter was not listed for recording the statements of witnesses, and learned SDM erred in recording the statements. Learned SDM had no credible information for issuing the notice. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned SDM be set aside.

7. The petition was opposed by the State by filing a reply, making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition wer