# Saurabh @ Chhotoo v. District Magistrate, Jhansi and others - **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 937 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-07-20 - **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.20098 of 2006 - **Bench:** M.C. Jain, K.K. Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saurabh-chhotoo-v-district-magistrate-jhansi-and-others-40688 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Art-226-Habeas Corpus Petition-detention on the ground-named accused in FIR-offence under section 147/148, 149, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C.-role of petitioner-in darknessknifing the victim-accused person loudly exhorting to do with breach of Public Order-detention Order Quashed. Held: Para 4 It has come in the FIR that when the accused were loudly exhorting each other during the course of committing this crime, the inverter was on which goes to show that there was no light in the locality. The incident which took place in the cover of the darkness and in which the petitioner has been given the role of knifing the victim, had nothing to do with the breach of public order. While considering the question whether a particular incident gave rise to breach of public order or it was only breach of law 938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 and order, it has to be seen as to what is the reach of the incident on the society. The present case at best can be said to be a murder committed in a dark night at about 8.30 P.M. when there was no light and the market was almost closed. ## Text 2 All] Saurabh @ Chhotoo V. District Magistrate, Jhansi and others 937 be allowed with a heading of Section 151 C.P.C., it also does not appear to be very sound. The mere mention of provision on the heading of the application will not render the application liable for rejection. On the contrary the prayer made in the application if found to be sound and covered under some other provision of the Code, it will not be treated as one made under Section 151 C.P.C. Such application should usually be considered in the light of its otherwise merits by the court. In the present case, the application with the prayer, appears to be pure and simple under the provision of Order XI, Rule 12 C.P.C. for discovery of document. It is definitely an order passed under that provision only and the application is not liable to be rejected summarily because it wrongly mentions Section 151 C.P.C. in its heading. The aforesaid case law of N.I.M.H. & Neuro Sciences (supra) is not applicable with the facts of this case. The trial court has given its serious thoughts to the prayer made in the application of the respondents plaintiffs and has found that the documents, which were sought to be discovered, would definitely be in possession of the petitioners, who are President and Secretary of the society and who alone represent the society. Therefore, if a direction has been given to them for presenting those documents, the said order cannot be said to be erroneous. The possession of the documents may be with the Treasurer but since the President and Secretary of the society represent the society itself, the direction of the court will be issued only to the President and Secretary and not to the Treasurer. 6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I do not find any error whatsoever in the order of the court below and as such the petition having no force is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.7.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J. THE HON'BLE K.K. MISRA, J. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.20098 of 2006 Saurabh @ Chhotoo ...Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Jhansi and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.N. Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Arvind Tripathi A.G.A. Constitution of India-Art-226-Habeas Corpus Petition-detention on the ground-named accused in FIR-offence under section 147/148, 149, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C.-role of petitioner-in darknessknifing the victim-accused person loudly exhorting to do with breach of Public Order-detention Order Quashed. Held: Para 4 It has come in the FIR that when the accused were loudly exhorting each other during the course of committing this crime, the inverter was on which goes to show that there was no light in the locality. The incident which took place in the cover of the darkness and in which the petitioner has been given the role of knifing the victim, had nothing to do with the breach of public order. While considering the question whether a particular incident gave rise to breach of public order or it was only breach of law 938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 and order, it has to be seen as to what is the reach of the incident on the society. The present case at best can be said to be a murder committed in a dark night at about 8.30 P.M. when there was no light and the market was almost closed. (Delivered by Hon'ble K.K. Misra, J.) 1. The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 30.7.2005 passed against him by the District Magistrate, Jhansi- respondent no. 1 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act 1980 and his continued detention thereunder. 2. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The detention order was passed on the basis of an F.I.R. registered as case crime no. 1435 of 2005 under sections 147,148,149,302,504,506 IPC P.S. Kotwali, district Jhansi, relating to an incident which took place on 30.5.2005 at about 8-30 P.M. The FIR was lodged by one Brijesh Kumar Sharma against the present petitioner and six others, in which one Rajesh alias Ranu was alleged to have been stabbed by Kapil, Manish alias Patiey, Dilip Lahariya, Durgesh, Chintoo, Chhuttu Pandit alias Ankit and the present petitioner. The present petitioner was alleged to have stabbed the deceased with knife. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 3. We have heard Sri S.N. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi A.G.A. for the state. 4. The sole point argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the impugned order in question did not at all relate to public order. Instead, they could simply raise the question of law and order. It has been argued that the detention order has been passed by the authority concerned without application of mind. Indeed, the intensity of the complained act and its impact on the society has to be considered to ascertain as to whether it is a question of law and order or public order. In the present case, the incident is alleged to have taken place in the night. It has come in the FIR that when the accused were loudly exhorting each other during the course of committing this crime, the inverter was on which goes to show that there was no light in the locality. The incident which took place in the cover of the darkness and in which the petitioner has been given the role of knifing the victim, had nothing to do with the breach of public order. While considering the question whether a particular incident gave rise to breach of public order or it was only breach of law and order, it has to be seen as to what is the reach of the incident on the society. The present case at best can be said to be a murder committed in a dark night at about 8.30 P.M. when there was no light and the market was almost closed. 5. In similar writ petition of the coaccused in writ petition no. 71190 of 2005 this court has held that the incident whereupon the instant detention order is grounded is not relatable to disturbance of the public order. 6. In view of the above, we come to the conclusion that the incident whereupon the instant detention order is grounded is not relatable to disturbance of the public order. 2 All] Babundar Singh Yadav V. State of U.P. and others 939 7. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned detention order dated 30.7.2005 passed against the petitioner by the respondent no. 1. 8. It is ordered that the detenu saurabh alias Chhotoo shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other connection. Petition Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37440 of 2006 Babundar Singh Yadav ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Gyanendra Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.N. Rai S.C. State Election Commission Rules-Rule 115-Bye-Election-election of village Pradhan held on 17.8.05-elected village Pradhan died on 2.10.05-three members committee appointed to carryout the development work by order dated 23.2.06-held-D.M. is obliged to complete election process within 3 monthsdirection issued accordingly. Held: Para 5 and 6 Under the Act as well as the Rules, the respondent no.3, District Magistrate, Ghazipur is obliged to take steps to fill up the post as soon as possible, after the vacancy on the post of Pradhan occurs. In the present case, nine months have passed but the post of Pradhan has not been filled up. Thus, it is a fit case for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for filling up the post of Pradhan of the village in question. Accordingly, it is directed that the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, respondent no.3 shall take immediate steps to fill up the post of Pradhan Gram Sabha Balua Tappa Kathaut (Hariharpur), Block Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as well as Rules 1994 and hold the election and complete the process as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today but not later than four months. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.) 1. An election for the post of Gram Pradhan of the village in question was held on 17.8.2005 in which one Rajesh Rai was elected as Gram Pradhan. On 2.10.2005 said Rajesh Rai was murdered and thereby a vacancy occurred on account of the death of Gram Pradhan of the Gram Sabha Balua Tappa Kathaut (Hariharpur), Block Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur. Thereafter on 23.2.2006 the respondent no.5, District Panchayat Raj officer, Ghazipur has passed an order appointing a Committee to carry on the development work of the village as provided under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhans and Up-Pradhans) Rules, 1994. This writ petition has, thus, been filed for quashing the order dated 23.2.2006 passed by respondent no.5 and also for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hold the election of the Gram Pradhan of the village in question, within a stipulated period as may be fixed by this Court.