- Study Abroad with Rudraksh Group to Gain Global Work Opportunities
- When the Missile Man Launched Love in the Akshaya Patra family.
- Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav announces 11Akshaya Patra Mid-Day Meal Kitchens in Uttar Pradesh.
- Infosys Offered Rs 18 Crore To Akshaya Patra For Midday Meal.
- Guide To Floss Your Teeth!
- Toothbrush Tips For Healthy Teeth!
- The growing trend of Banking & Finance Mobile App Development.
- Why Smoking is Bad For Your Teeth.
- Benefits of Digital Marketing
- Antidepressants are not habit-forming. Public perceptions need to change!
New Delhi, Aug 18 (IANS) Children plucking pomegranates from someone else’s tree does not constitute a threat to public peace, a court here has ruled and quashed a magisterial court’s order for security deployment.
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 dispute if public peace is not threatened.
“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,” Judge Praveen Kumar ruled in his Aug 14 order.
The judge 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.