‘Peace can’t be sacrificed at the will of individual’
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 13: Principal Sessions Judge Kathua Jaffer Hussain Beg has dismissed the revision petition filed by Simranjit Singh of Shiromani Akali Dal Punjab against the order under Section 144 CrPC passed by District Magistrate, Kathua by virtue of which the entry of the petitioner within the jurisdiction of District Kathua was prohibited.
The petitioner contended in the petition that his movement cannot be prohibited until his movement is a threat to the State. It was submitted that the party of the petitioner informed the Deputy Commissioner Jammu regarding his tour programme and the petitioner also had authenticated the same.
Accordingly, on 17.10.2022 when he along with his party workers reached on the border of UT of J&K at Lakhanpur, the police stopped him from proceeding ahead without any reason. The Tehsildar on spot informed him that his movement has been prohibited by the order under Section 144 CrPC passed by District Magistrate Kathua.
The respondents, in their objections, resisted the petition on the grounds that no fundamental, legal or statutory right of the petitioner has been violated but due to inputs from different agencies that law and order situation would arise in the UT of J&K including District Kathua in case the petitioner is allowed to make entry.
After hearing the arguments advanced at the bar and referring various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, the Principal Sessions Judge Kathua observed, “the material placed before the District Magistrate Kathua by SSP Kathua reveals that a number of instances of affiliation to form Khalistan, a sovereign State for Sikh was made by the petitioner and the material with regard to the political career and activities of the petitioner on record was sufficient for the District Magistrate to pass the impugned order”.
“Thus, it cannot be said that the District Magistrate has without application of mind issued the impugned order. Furthermore, the rights of the public at large and their peace cannot be sacrificed at the will of the individual because the settled law is that wherever an individual’s fundamental right comes in conflict with fundamental right of others, the court must uphold that right which is consistent with larger public interest”, the Judge said.
“When there is no material on record that the petitioner has informed the District Administration Kathua for his visit and surprisingly when the petitioner reached at the entry point of territorial jurisdiction of District Kathua, the quick decisions and swift as well as effective action necessitated in such situation may not justify or permit the District Administration of Kathua to give prior opportunity”, court said, adding “the District Magistrate Kathua was within his power to pass exparte order under Section 144(1) CrPC because the matter was emergent nature”.
“In my view the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate Kathua is in accordance with the law and he has complied with the provisions of law and the said order requires no interference”, the Principal Sessions Judge said.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Follow our WhatsApp channel