Lijo Jose v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 9667 OF 2023 MC 74/2023 OF SUB DVL.MAGISTRATE,PALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` LIJO JOSE AGED 29 YEARS S/O. JOSEKUTTY PAULOSE, CHERIYANMAKKAN HOUSE, BARANAMGHANAM.P.O., PALA KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686578 BY ADVS. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN N.P.ASHA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SRI.HRITHWIK C.S., PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CrlM.C..No.9667/2023 **2** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.9667 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 01[st] day of December, 2023** ## **ORDER** This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash Annexure-I order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pala, in M.C.No.74/2023. This order is passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate invoking the powers under Section 107 read with 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The main contention of the petitioner is that Annexure-I order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not contain the substances of the information received for arriving at the satisfaction contemplated under the relevant provision. The counsel relied the judgments of this Court in **Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another** (2009 (4) KHC 929), **Santhosh M.V and others vs. State of Kerala and others** (2014 KHC 522) and also **Bejoy K.V vs State of Kerala and Another** (2015 (5) KHC 507). CrlM.C..No.9667/2023 **3** 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. A perusal of Annexure-I notice would not show that it is an order passed in tune with Section 107 r/w Section 111 Cr.PC. In **Girish P** ' case (supra), the mandate of Section 111 and Section 107 Cr.PC are mentioned. It will be better to extract the relevant paragraph, which reads as follows:- “5. S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure enables an executive Magistrate on receiving information that a person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, to require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. S.111 mandates that when a Magistrate acting under S.107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, he shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties, if any required, the necessity to setforth the CrlM.C..No.9667/2023 **4** substance of the information' in the order under S.111 is not an empty formality and is with a purpose. It is to enable the person against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause before the Magistrate that the allegations are not correct. Unless that information is furnished to the person against whom the order is passed, he cannot defend the allegation as against him. 6. Annexure I order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not disclose the substance of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on which he was satisfied that proceedings under S.107 is to be initiated. The fact that petitioners are involved in Crime No. 207/2009 by itself is not a ground, to initiate proceedings, under S. 107. Though past conduct may be a guide to initiate proceedings, on that ground alone proceedings cannot be initiated unless as stated by the Full Bench in Moidu's case (supra) there is an imminent breach of peace warranting initiation of proceedings under S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” 4. In **Bejoy K.V's** case (supra) also, this Court considered the same point and relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:- CrlM.C..No.9667/2023 **5** “17. Therefore, it is mandatory that an order issued under S.111 CrPC by a Sub Divisional Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under S.107 CrPC, to set forth the substance of information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and type of securities, if any are required. The order must also reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action under S.107 CrPC for preservation of peace and that thereupon he has passed such an order. An order issued under S.111 CrPC calling upon the person to show cause against execution of bond without disclosing therein the substance of information received and upon which satisfaction was arrived at by him, will not sustain in the eye of law. The order must contain all particulars relevant and sufficient to inform him about the accusation against him. This is because, the party calling upon must have to explain the circumstances against him or defend the proceedings and only on sufficient and satisfactory information being furnished, he will be able to answer the same. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate empowered with the authority to exercise the authority under S.107 CrPC to initiate proceedings must be vigilant and conscious while exercising the power and should bear in mind that the spirit envisaged by the CrlM.C..No.9667/2023 **6** Section is preservation of peace and public tranquillity. The Sub Divisional Magistrate must see that the information supplied to him proposing action, was not one intended with a view to satisfy his personal vendetta. He must bear in mind that with the exercise of the power a man is called upon to execute a bond undertaking to preserve peace and tranquility for a period specified in the proceedings and therefore, it is likely to cast a stigma upon such a person that he was instrumental in breaching the peace or disturbing the public tranquility. If such a stigma is allowed to be fell upon an innocent person without any basis, that stigma cannot be removed later and the person would not be relegated to his real status of innocence, ultimately when such person was found irresponsible for any such alleged acts.” 5. 5. In the light of the above dictum, I am of the considered opinion that Annexure-I is not an order in tune with Section 111 Cr.PC and 107 Cr.PC. It is only stated that one crime is registered by the Pala Police Station as Crime No.774/2023. The substances of information received and the details of the case are not narrated in the notice. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Annexure-I proceedings is unsustainable. CrlM.C..No.9667/2023 **7** Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner based on Annexure-I are quashed. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV CrlM.C..No.9667/2023 **8** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9667/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-ICERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALA IN MC NO.74/2023 Annexure-IIA TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME NO. 774/2023 OF PALA POLICE STATION ```