Proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used to harass individuals and must be conducted promptly and efficiently.

1. This order will dispose of two petitions under S. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing proceedings under Ss. 107/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code pending against the petitioners in the Court of Shri Jogindar Pal Puri, Magistrate First Class (Executive), Ludhiana against the petitioners. It is contended that even on the allegations contained in the report on which the security proceedings were started against the petitioners no case for taking action under S. 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code was made out, that if there was any danger of breach of peace that was momentary and it ceased to exist on the day the report was lodged, and that the proceedings against the petitioners had been instituted merely to harass them and with the interior purpose of punishing them for their alleged support of the strike to which the students of the Agricultural University, Ludhiana, had resorted as far back as January, 1965.

2. On reference to the record I find that on 14th January, 1965, the Dean of the College of Agriculture, Ludhiana, addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, Sadar Police Station, Ludhiana, complaining that a group of students, who had been on strike and who had not been attending the classes, with the help of outsiders, had been making attempts to prevent students from entering the compus, and this constituted a threat to peaceful atmosphere in the College. Names of 13 persons, who were alleged to have been preventing the students from attending the classes, were mentioned in this letter. They are all petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 29-M of 1965. Krishan Murari and four others who are the petitioners in the connected petition (Criminal Revision No. 19-M of 1965) are, however, not among them. The concluding portion of this complaint addressed to the police runs thus :

"Some of the students particularly under the guidance of one Kuldip Singh, Roll No. 270, Second Year, even entered the hostels to prevent the students from attending classes. Now that normalcy has been attained, the small sore spot in front of the campus where some of the unruly elements of the class are collecting with outsiders, is a threat to peaceful atmosphere in the college."

3. On receiving this complaint, A.S.I. Ravinder Nath at once initiated proceedings under Ss. 107/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code not only against the 13 persons named by the Dean but also against five others, namely, Kishan Murari, Darshan Singh Bagi, Tej Singh, Manjit Singh and Jagrup Singh (petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 19-M of 1965).

4. On the very next day, i.e., 15th January, 1965, the Ilaqa Magistrate passed a preliminary order calling upon these 18 persons to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 5,000 each for their good behaviour as well as for their appearance in Court. On 27th January, 1965, when the 18 students, against whom the proceedings were being taken under Ss. 107/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code, appeared in Court, no evidence was recorded and the case was adjourned to 11th February, 1965. On that adjourned hearing not only none of the prosecution witnesses appeared but even the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector absented himself and the Magistrate adjourned further proceedings to 24th February, 1965. Again, the prosecution did not produce any of the witnesses in the case, and the Magistrate as a matter of pure indulgence adjourned the case to 11th March, 1965. On that adjourned hearing the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector was again found absent and the State was not represented. No witness for the prosecution was in attendance even then, and the Magistrate directed that the further proceedings in the case would take place on 24th March, 1965. It was thereafter that, the petitioners approached this Court for redress under S. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. S. Ajit Singh Bains has urged that from the manner in which proceedings had been conducted in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, it is abundantly clear that the object of