http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MD. GULAM ABBAS & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MD. IBRAHIM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/12/1977

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) BHAGWATI, P.N. SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1978 AIR  422            1978 SCR  (2) 419  1978 SCC  (1) 226  CITATOR INFO :  E          1981 SC2198  (4,5,6,33)

ACT: Criminal  Procedure  Code, 1973, (Act 11 of 1974),  S.  144- Principles on which jurisdiction is to be exercised u/s  144 of the Crl. P.C. by magistrate, explained.

HEADNOTE: 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 Crl.  P.C., holding that High  Court committed an   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 and227 ’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. Dismissing the Petition the Court, HELD  :  1.  No hard and fast rules can  be  laid  down  for guidance  in  exercising  a power on  which  decisions  must necessarily  be governed by the existing situation  in  each case.   It  has  to be judged  on  facts  and  circumstances existing at a particular place at a particular time. [421CD] 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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

orders  which cannot 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  Crl. 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 Crl.  P.C. The magistrate is  not concerned. with individual rights in performing his duty u/s 144  Crl.  P.C. but he has to determine what may  reasonably necessary  or  expedient in a situation of which he  is  the best judge. [420DE, 421A]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Review Petition No.  36  of 1977.  Application for review of this Court’s Judgment dated 6th of De76.                     IN                Civil Appeal No. 941-A of 1976 A.  K. Sen, M. C. Bhandare, (Mrs.) Urimila  Kapoor,  (Miss). Kamlesh   Bansal   and  (Mrs.)  Shobha   Dikshit   for   the Petitioners. 420 Bashir  Ahmed,  K.  L.  Hathi  and  P.  C.  Kapoor  for  the Respondents. 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 believe that  Magistrates will deliberately shut their eyes to the requirements of law as laid down clearly in Section 144, Cr.  P.C., but, as what is  not  easily conceivable sometimes does happen,  we  will explain  the  provisions of Section 144  Criminal  Procedure Code a little. This-provision 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 under his  management" with the object, inter alla, of preventing "a disturbance of the  public tranqunity, 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 intended only to prevent dangers to life,  health, safety  or peace and tranquility of members of  the  public. They are only temporary orders which cannot last beyond  two months  from  the making thereof as is  clear  from  Section 144(6)  of the Code.  Questions of title cannot be,  decided here  at all.  But, previous judgments on them may  have  a’ bearing  on  the question whether, and, if  so,  what  order should be, passed under Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code. It may sometimes happen that a person may be prevented  from doing  something  even upon his own  property  provided  the doing of a perfectly legal act constitutes a danger to human life,  health,  or safety of others or to public  peace  and tranquility.   An  example  of  this  can  be  shouting   of provocative slogans from one’s own house top.  Nevertheless, it  is the duty of the authorities to aid and protect  those

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

who are performing completely legal acts in a reasonable and perfectly  legal manner or in accordance with what  the  law permits them to do.  It is only where it is not  practicable to  allow them to do something which is quite legal,  having regard to the state of excited feelings of persons living in an  area or frequenting a locality, that any action  may  be taken  under Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code  which  may interfere  with  what are, otherwise, completely  legal  and permissible conduct and speech. It  was  asserted  on behalf of the petitioners  that  in  a representative suit between Shia and Sunni sects of  Muslims question   of  title  to  properties  or  places  to   which Magistrate’s  orders  under Section 144  Criminal  Procedure Code  related has already been decided.  If that be  so.  we have no doubt that the Magistrate will respect that decision in  making  an  order under Section 144  Cr.   P.C.  in  the future,  Then it would be easier for the Magistrate  to  see who should be allowed to exercise- 421 the legitimate right of holding a meeting on or occupying  a particular  property or doing anything else, there.  It  may however  be noted that the Magistrate is not concerned  with individual  rights in performing his duty under Section  144 but he has to determine what may be reasonably necessary  or expedient in a situation of which he is the best judge. If  any  community  or sect is disposed  to  transgress  the rights  of another in a particular property habitually,  the remedy lies by way of a civil suit for an injunction.   Both sides   before  us  make  conflicting  assertions  on   such questions.   It is impossible to decide them for  the  first time  either  in a writ petition or in  a  proceeding  under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code.  If public peace and tranquili ty or other objects mentioned there are not in danger  the  Magistrate concerned cannot act  under  Section 144.   He  could  only direct parties to go  to  the  proper forum.   On the other hand, if the public safety, peace,  or tranquility  are,  in danger, it is left to  the  Magistrate concerned  to take proper action under Section 144  Criminal Procedure  Code.  No hard and fast rule-, can be  laid  down for  guidance in exercising a power on which decisions  must necessarily  be governed by the existing situation  in  each case.   It  has  to be judged  on  facts  and  circumstances existing at a particular place at a particular time. We  have  no doubt that, particularly after this  brief  and obvious  explanation  of  the  provisions  of  Section   144 Criminal  Procedure Code, no orders will be passed  contrary to that the section itself so clearly requires as conditions precedent to the passing of an order.  We are not  convinced at all that the applicants had any real ground for seeking a review  of  our  orders.   Consequently,  we  dismiss   this application.  We, however, make no orders as to costs. S.C R.                                          Review Petition dismissed. 422