Plucking pomegranates not a threat to public peace, says court
20 Aug 2014 4:34 AM IST
Order of security deployment to guard trees of pomegranates by executive magistrate has been quashed by a Delhi court on Monday.
Delhi police, in a plea, had sought the executive magistrate’s direction, fearing that children plucking pomegranates may lead to breach of public peace. The court said that children plucking pomegranates from someone else’s tree does not constitute a threat to public peace.
Trashing the lower court’s order, the special CBI court of Judge Praveen Kumar here has observed that law cannot be used to solve private disputes if public peace is not threatened and said that the underlaying object of Section 107 CrPC is preventive and not penal.
‘The sole object of initiating proceedings under Section 107 (security for keeping peace) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is to maintain public peace and tranquillity and it cannot be used as a handle in case of a private dispute between individuals where there is no material of disturbance to public tranquillity or public peace,’ said the judge. He quashed the order of the special executive magistrate, outer Delhi district, for police deployment to guard the pomegranate tree owned by three persons — Saurav Kumar Chaudhary, Rambha Chaudhary and Niranjan Kumar Chaudhary.
Delhi Police, in a plea, had sought the court’s direction for security deployment, fearing that children plucking pomegranates from the Chaudharys’ tree may lead to breach of public peace and tranquillity. The magisterial court had issued show cause notice to Saurav Kumar Chaudhary, Rambha Chaudhary and Niranjan Kumar Chaudhary over the issue and asked them to maintain peace during the inquiry proceedings.
The Chaudharys in their revision plea submitted to the court that the dispute was not of such a nature which could lead to breach of peace and public tranquillity, and the authority should not have exercised its power under Section 107 of the CrPC.
Delhi police, in a plea, had sought the executive magistrate’s direction, fearing that children plucking pomegranates may lead to breach of public peace. The court said that children plucking pomegranates from someone else’s tree does not constitute a threat to public peace.
Trashing the lower court’s order, the special CBI court of Judge Praveen Kumar here has observed that law cannot be used to solve private disputes if public peace is not threatened and said that the underlaying object of Section 107 CrPC is preventive and not penal.
‘The sole object of initiating proceedings under Section 107 (security for keeping peace) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is to maintain public peace and tranquillity and it cannot be used as a handle in case of a private dispute between individuals where there is no material of disturbance to public tranquillity or public peace,’ said the judge. He quashed the order of the special executive magistrate, outer Delhi district, for police deployment to guard the pomegranate tree owned by three persons — Saurav Kumar Chaudhary, Rambha Chaudhary and Niranjan Kumar Chaudhary.
Delhi Police, in a plea, had sought the court’s direction for security deployment, fearing that children plucking pomegranates from the Chaudharys’ tree may lead to breach of public peace and tranquillity. The magisterial court had issued show cause notice to Saurav Kumar Chaudhary, Rambha Chaudhary and Niranjan Kumar Chaudhary over the issue and asked them to maintain peace during the inquiry proceedings.
The Chaudharys in their revision plea submitted to the court that the dispute was not of such a nature which could lead to breach of peace and public tranquillity, and the authority should not have exercised its power under Section 107 of the CrPC.
Next Story
