MD. GULAM ABBAS & ORS. versus MD. IBRAHIM & ORS.

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 16-12-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

419 
MD. GULAM ABBAS & ORS. 
A 
v. 
MD. IBRAHIM & ORS. 
December 16, 1977 
[M. H. BEG, C.J., P. N. BHAGWATI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J 
H 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (Act II of 1974), S. 144-Princip/ea on 
which jurisdiction is to be exercised u /s 144 of thtl Cr/. P.C. by magistrate, 
.explained. 
In Md. Ibrahim v. State of U.P. etc. (C.A. No. 941A of 1976 etc. etc. 
decided on 6-12-1976), this Court set aside the' judgment of the Allahabad High 
·Court passed in the Writ Petition quashing the orders of the City Magistrate 
and Session Judge u/s. 144 Cr!. P.C., holding that High Court committed an 
C 
error in pronouncing views on the orders passed by the criminal courts when 
they ceased to be operative and in giving finding on rights, title and property 
in a petition u/ A 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 
In the Review Petition, the Review Petitioners contended that unless the 
court mentioned the correct principles on which jurisdiction is to be exercised 
u/s 144 Crl. P.C. by Magistrates, they may continue to exercise them on wrong 
principles. 
DismWing the Petition the Court, 
HELD : 1. No hard and fast rules can be laid down for 
guidance 
in 
exercising a J?Ower on which decisions must necessarily be governed 
by the 
existing situation in each case. It bas to be judged on facts and circumstances 
existing at a particular place at a particular time. (421CD] 
D 
2. S. 144 confers a jurisdiction "to direct any person to abstain from a 
certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or 
E 
under his management". 
(420C] 
3. The kind of orders u/s 144(3) which "may be directed to a particular 
individual or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular 
place" are intended only to prevent dangers to life health, safety or peace and 
tranquility of members of the public. A person may be prevented from doing 
something even upon his. own property provided that the doing of a perfectly 
legal act constitutes a danger to human life, health or safety of others or to 
·public peace and tranquility. They are only temporary orders which 
cannot 
F 
last beyond two months from the making thereof. [420C-D] 
4. Questions of title .cannot be decided for the first time either in a Writ 
Petition or in a proceeding u/s 144 Cr!. P.C. at all, as the remedy lies by way 
of a Civil Suit for an injunction. 
But, previous judgments on them may have 
a hearing on the question whether, and, if so, what order should be passed 
u/s. 144 Cr!. P.C. The magistrate is not concerned with individual rights in 
performing his duty u/s 144 Cr!. P.C. but he has to determine what may rea-
·sonably necessary or expedient in a situation of which he is the best judge. 
G 
[420DE, 421A] 
Clv!L APPLLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 36 of 1977. 
Application for review of this Court's Judgment dated 6th of De-
·cember 76. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 941-A of 1976 
A. K. Sen, M. C. Bhandare, (Mrs.) 
Urimi/a 
Kapoor, 
(Miss) 
Kam/esh Bansal and (Mrs.) Shobha Dikshit for the Petitioners. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 
Bashir Ahmed, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapoor for the Respondent,. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, CJ.-This review application seems quite unnecessary. Since, 
however, learned Counsel for the petitioners have earnestly tried to 
impress upon us that, unless we mentioned the correct principles on 
which jurisdiction is to be exercised under Section 144 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code by Magistrates, they may continue to exercise them on 
wrong principles, we may clear up these possibly imaginary difficulties. 
We find it hard to bi;)ieve that Magistrates will deliberately shut iheir 
eyes to the requirements of law as laid down clearly in Section 144, Cr. 
P.C., but, as what is not easily conceivable sometimes docs happen, 
we will explain the provisions of Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code 
a little. 
This provision confers a jurisdiction to "direct any person to abs-
tain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in 
his possession or under his management" with the object, inter alia, 
of preventing "a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an 
affray". 
Section 144(3) specifically lays down that the order under 
this Section "may be directed to a particular 
individual or to 
the 
public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place". 
The 
kind of orders mentioned here are obviously in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.