High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeQuashed the Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings; MC...
Common Order in Crl.MC Nos.1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649 of 2020
Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC Nos.1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649 of 2020
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- ASHOK MENON
- Judgment Date
- 2020-03-11
- Court Decision / Holding
- The proceedings against the petitioners in MC Nos.291, 288, 292, 285 and 286 of 2019 before the SDM, Taliparamba, are quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Criminal MCs are allowed.
- Final Disposition
- Quashed the Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings; MCs allowed; overall quashing of the impugned orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rahul.K.P., aged 26 years s/o Sreedharan, Aringeth House, Mayyil Amsol, Cherupazhassi, Kannur
- Basheer K. P., aged 31 years s/o Abdul Rahman, Pattathil House, Perumachery, Mayyil Amsol, Kannur
- Prakasn C., aged 45 years s/o Kunhiraman, Chakkarayan, Parantode, Perumachery, Kannur
- Dileep Murikkancheri, aged 30 years s/o Radhakrishnan, Murikkancheri House, Perumachery, Kannur
- Rajeevan C., aged 42 years s/o Kunhiraman, Chakkarayan, Parantode, Perumachery, Kannur
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Cochin-682 031
- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kannur District, PIN - 670012
- S.I. of Police, Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District, PIN - 670012
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. I.V. Pramod
- • Sri. K.V. Sasidharan
- • Smt. Saira Souraj P.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. V. Sreeja, PP
Case Synopsis & Summary
Five petitioners were implicated in Crime No.625/2016 of Mayyil Police Station, alleged to have committed offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with 149 IPC. The SHO's report, countersigned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, formed the basis for initiating Section 107 Cr.P.C proceedings against the petitioners, with identical preliminary orders under Section 111 Cr.P.C requiring presence and bonds of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for one year to maintain peace. The matter is heard together as the petitions share the same factual matrix. The court refers to Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and other Kerala decisions as establishing that preventive action under Section 107 Cr.P.C cannot be grounded on vague allegations and must rest on a discernible discussion of information and an articulation of how breach of peace is likely. The SDMs’ orders here are described as cryptic and mechanical, with no discussion of the SHO’s report or demonstration of application of mind, suggesting the orders are likely to fail judicial scrutiny. The court quashes the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C and allows the Criminal MCs, stressing the heavy constitutional implications of restricting movement and liberty without adequate justification.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 111 Cr.P.C.Section 107 Cr.P.C.Section 482 Cr.P.C.I.P.C. Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- SDM must discuss the substance of information and explain how and in what manner there is an apprehension of imminent breach of peace; orders must be reasoned and not mechanical.
- Right to movement and freedom is a serious liberty that requires careful justification when curtailed by preventive orders.
- Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (AIR 1971 SC 2486)
- Moidu v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 578)
- Peethambaran v. State of Kerala (1980 KLT 876)
- Santhosh M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala (2014 (2) KLD 519)
- Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala (2015 (2) KLD 889)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The document presents the court’s common order rather than a verbatim recital of the petitioners’ arguments; the order indicates that the petitioners challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C and the Section 111 Cr.P.C preliminary orders on the basis that they were issued in a mechanical manner and rested on vague allegations, lacking discussion of the SHO’s report and their potential to cause breach of peace.
Contentions of Respondents
The State and the SDM contend that preventive action under Section 107 Cr.P.C is a legitimate instrument to prevent breaches of peace; the SDM’s orders were issued to secure public order and do not require to be extravagantly detailed; they rely on information in the SHO’s report to justify the action.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr | AIR 1971 SC 2486 | Mentioned Only | Cited as part of the catena of decisions laying down the principle that preventive action must be grounded in substantive information and reasoned orders. |
| Moidu v. State of Kerala | (1982) 2 KLT 578 | Mentioned Only | Cited in context of established precedents on Section 107/111 Cr.P.C proceedings; not expressly applied or distinguished in the judgment. |
| Peethambaran v. State of Kerala | (1980) KLT 876 | Mentioned Only | Cited as part of the principle requiring reasoned, non-vague orders for preventive action. |
| Santhosh M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala | (2014) (2) KLD 519 | Mentioned Only | Listed among the authorities forming the doctrinal backdrop; not overtly distinguished or overruled. |
| Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala | (2015) (2) KLD 889 | Mentioned Only | Cited to illustrate the controlling legal principle; treated as part of the established catena without modification. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Common Order in Crl.MC Nos.1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649 of 2020 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941**
## **Crl.MC.No.1620 OF 2020(B)**
**(AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN MC NO.291/2019 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALIPARAMBA)**
## **PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:**
**RAHUL.K.P. AGED 26 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, ARINGETH HOUSE, MAYYIL AMSOM, CHERUPAZHASSI, KANNUR.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONER:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-682 031. 2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012. 3 S.I. OF POLICE, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012..**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
**SMT. V.SREEJA, PP**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC Nos.1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649 of 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
2
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941**
**Crl.MC.No.1622 OF 2020(C)**
**(AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN MC NO.288/2019 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALIPARAMBA)**
## **PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:**
**BASHEER K. P., AGED 31 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, PATTATHIL HOUSE, PERUMACHERY, MAYYIL AMSOM, KANNUR.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONER:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 682 031. 2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012. 3 S. I. OF POLICE MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012.**
**BY SMT. V.SREEJA, PP**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1620/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
3
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941**
**Crl.MC.No.1624 OF 2020(C)**
**(AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN MC NO.292/2019 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALIPARAMBA)**
## **PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:**
**DILEEP MURIKKANCHERI AGED 30 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, MURIKKANCHERI HOUSE, PERUMACHERY, MAYYIL AMSOM, KANNUR.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONER:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 682 031. 2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE KANNUR DISTRICT - 670012. 3 S. I. OF POLICE MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670012. BY SMT. V.SREEJA, PP**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1620/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
4
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941**
**Crl.MC.No.1638 OF 2020(D)**
**(AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN MC NO.285/2019 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALIPARAMBA)**
## **PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:**
**PRAKASAN C., AGED 45 YEARS S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,CHAKKARAYAN, PARANTHODE,PERUMACHERY,KANNUR.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONER:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN-682031. 2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670012. 3 S.I. OF POLICE, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012.**
**BY SMT. V.SREEJA, PP**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1620/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
5
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941**
**Crl.MC.No.1649 OF 2020(E)**
**(AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN MC NO.286/2019 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALIPARAMBA)**
## **PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:**
**RAJEEVAN C. AGED 42 YEARS S/O KUNHIRAMAN, CHAKKARAYAN, PARANTHODE, PERUMACHERY, KANNUR.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.**
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONER:**
**1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,COCHIN-682 031. 2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012. 3 S.I. OF POLICE, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670012.**
**BY SMT. V.SREEJA, PP**
**THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1620/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
6
## ASHOK MENON, J.
-----------------------------------Crl.MC Nos.1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649 of 2020 ------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of March, 2020
## COMMON ORDER
Petitioners in these cases are implicated in Crime No.625/2016 of Mayyil Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The Station House Officer, Mayyil Police Station submitted reports with regard to the petitioners in these cases counter signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kannur before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Thaliparamba, for initiating action against them under Section 107 Cr.PC. Separate crimes were also registered under Section 107 Cr.PC against the petitioners.
2. As the facts in all these petitions are common and pertain to initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr.PC, these cases are disposed of by this common order.
3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Taliparamba initiated proceedings against the
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
7
petitioners in these cases by registering MCs against them and vide identical preliminary orders under Section 111 Cr.PC required each of them to appear before him in person and to show cause why proceedings under Section 107 Cr.PC should not be made against them by directing them to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year.
4. There has been a catena of decisions on the subject starting from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr [AIR 1971 SC 2486] followed by the decisions of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala [1982 KLT 578] , Peethambaran v. State of Kerala [1980 KLT 876] , Santhosh M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLD 519] and Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLD 889] . A perusal of the impugned orders under Section 111 Cr.PC made by the SDO, Taliparamba indicates that he has not read any of the aforesaid decisions before invoking the powers vested on him. The instigation for invoking the provisions is registration of Crime No.625/2016 mentioned above. Three years have elapsed since the registration of that crime, and what happened
8
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
thereafter to invoke the provisions under section 107 Cr.PC, has not been stated or discussed in the impugned orders. The contents of the report filed by the Station House Officer, Mayyil has not been discussed. It is settled in the aforesaid decisions that the SDM is not expected to draw up proceedings against persons under Section 107 Cr.PC based on vague allegations and general statements. There must be discussion made by the SDM on the basis of the report filed by the SHO regarding how and in what manner the petitioners are likely to commit breach of peace in the locality. The SDM is expected to set forth the substance of the information that is received by him, before he gives notice to the persons against whom action is contemplated as to in what manner there is an apprehension of imminent breach of peace likely to be committed by them for which they are expected to execute bond. Curtailing citizens' right of movement and freedom is a serious matter which needs to be given much importance to by the SDM. The identical manner in which all the orders are passed on the MCs against the petitioners by the SDM indicates that there was no application of mind and was done in a mechanical manner. The
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
**==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
substance of the report of the SHO which persuaded the SDM to make an order and form an opinion about there being a genuine cause of breach of peace by the petitioners, should have been detailed. The impugned orders are cryptic, with no such discussion. Therefore, I find the impugned orders, by all means, would not stand judicial scrutiny.
5. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioners in MC Nos.291, 288, 292, 285 and 286 of 2019, respectively, of the SDM, Taliparamba are hereby quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC.
The Criminal MCs are allowed.
## **Sd/-**
## **ASHOK MENON**
**JUDGE**
jg
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
10
## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1620/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN MC 291/2019 OF SDM, THALIPARAMBA DATED 23.12.2019.**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
11
## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1622/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN M.C.288/2019 OF SDM, THALIPARAMBA DATED 23.12.2019.**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
12
## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1624/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN M.C.292/2019 OF SDM, THALIPARAMBA DATED 23.12.2019.**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
13
## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1638/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1**
**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN M.C.NO.285/2019 OF SDM,THALIPARAMBA DATED 23/12/2019.**
Crl.MCs 1620, 1622, 1624, 1638 and 1649/2020
14
## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1649/2020**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1**
**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN MC 286/2019 OF SDM, THALIPARAMBA DATED 23.12.2019**