ORDER

1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- “7.1. That, this Petition may kindly be allowed.

7.2. That, show-cause notice no. 93/ /kkjk 110/ o"kZ 2023 may kindly be quashed.

7.3. That, impugned order dated 15.06.2023 passed in case no. 93/ /kkjk 110/ o"kZ 2023 may kindly be set aside ans set Petitioner free of all charges in connection with the said proceedings.

7.4 That, impugned order dated 15.06.2023 passed in case no. Case no. 340, //kkjk151/107/116/ o"kZ 2023 may kindly beset aside and set Petitioner free of all charges in connection with the said proceeding.

7.5 That, this Hon’ble may be kindly pleased to take an appropriate strict action against Respondent no. 01 to 03 on account of abusing the process of law.

7.6 That, this Hon’ble may be kindly pleased to pass an order directing respondent no. 04 to compensate Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for violation of fundamental rights as protected under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

7.7 Any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

2] The grievance of the petitioner is that he was detained illegally by the respondent No.1, the then SDM by invoking Section 151 of Cr.P.C. who has been arraigned as respondent No.1 in his personal capacity.

3] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid order if detaintion was passed without any jurisdiction by respondent No.1 and the petitioner has been illegally detained. In support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for his illegal detaintion, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Jagdip and another vs. state reported as ILR (1987) I Delhi. Counsel has also relied upon the decision in the case of Rajesh S/o Suryabhan Nayak vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported as 2006(5) Mh.L.J. and in the case of Rabindra Nath Ghosal vs. University of Calcutta and others reported as (2002) 7 SCC.

4] Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner has long been released from jail, and the proceeding is still pending against him under Section 107, 151 of Cr.P.C.

5] Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record as also the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, it is found that so far as the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are concerned, in the Istagasa, the following observations have been made against the petitioner regarding breach of peace:- “प्रतर, श्रीमीमान अनअवुविभीमाग्रीय दण्‍ण्‍ीमा‍ीमाधधिकीमारर महोददय, न्यन्यीमा‍ीमायीमालय उप खणण्‍्‍‍ जीमाुविरीमा, जजलीमा ररलीमाम (म.प्र.)

महोददय, तनुविेदन होै कक थीमानीमा जीमाुविरीमा शहोर जजलीमा ररलीमाम क स्रीमीमा केत esa जीमाुविरीमा शहोर कीमा (अनीमाुविेदक रीमाजेश उर् रीमाजू

वपरीमा भेरूलीमाल मेुविीमा‍ीमा मीमालर उम 41 सीमाल, तनुविीमास्री नयीमा मीमालरपअरीमा जीमाुविरीमा कीमा लदक शीमांतर भंग करने, जीमान से मीमारने क धिमक देने, सअदखदरर करने कीमा अपरीमाधि्री होदकर यहो कीमार समय से सक्रिय होै रथीमा इसक े fo:) थीमानीमा जीमाुविर ीमा शहो र प र कअल 02 अपरीमाधि , अपरीमाधि ्रि . 290/25.9.19 धिीमार ीमा 447, 504, 506 भ ीमा . द . वुवि . 3/4 ऋणिय ो कीमा संरकि अधधि . ुवि अपरीमाधि ्रि . 16/09.01.2021 धिीमार ीमा 447, 504, 506 भ ीमा . द . वुवि . iathc) हो ै। कक नन्र्र अ ‍ अ इसके उपरीमान न्र्र ‍ भ ्री इसक अपरीमाधधिक izo`fr;k sa म े कदई अंकअश नहो र लग रहो ीमा हो ै। यहो सक्रिय अपरीमाधि ्री होै ज द अपने आपक द पतकीमा र बरीमार ीमा होै रथ ीमा मीमाल र समीमाज क े fo:) गलर जीमानकीमार र प्रकीमाशशर क र समीमाज क े लदग द मे आ्रिदश उ तत्प्प ‍ न ्नन्न ‍ करर ीमा हो ै। जजसस े मीमाल र समीमाज म े क ीमा ‍र आ्रिदश होदक र कभ ्री भ ्री लदक शीमांतर भंग होद सकर ्री हो ै। इसक ीमा समीमाज म े सस्ुवि्ुवि ‍ र न्त न्त ‍ ुवि सस्ुवि्ुवि ‍ च ्‍च्‍ ‍ न ्दन्द ‍ रहोन ीमा समीमाज क े शलय े पररसंकट म े हो द गय ीमा होै। कैत म े इसक ीमा आरंक व्यव्यीमा ‍