Roy (S/o Chacko) v. Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha Police Station & Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/15TH BHADRA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 5919 of 2016 ------------------------** **ORDER DATED 18-08-2014 IN MC 20/2014 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MUVATTUPUZHA CRIME NO. 1101/2013 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM** **......** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **ROY,** **S/O. CHACKO, VELLAPPAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMBU KARA, MEKKADAMBU P.O., VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA-682 316.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.M.V.PAULOSE** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, PIN-686 661.** **2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,** **MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K.** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** ## **Crl.MC.No. 5919 of 2016 ------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------** **ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.930/12 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE II COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.928/12, -DOANNEXURE III COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2015 IN CRL.MC NO.5239/2014. ANNEXURE IV COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MR.UTHUP IN CRIME NO.928/12 (CC 613/12). ANNEXURE V COPY OF THE FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.200/13 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE VI COPY OF THE CHARGE DATED 18.8.2014 IN MC 20. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE -----------------------** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msv/** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.5919 of 2016** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of September, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.The proceeding initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner herein is under challenge in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for brevity). - 2.As per the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to appear before the said officer in person at 11.30 a.m. on 19.9.2014 and to show cause why he should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.20,000/with two solvent sureties for the like sum for keeping peace for a term of one year. Crl.M.C.5919/2016 2 - 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4.The learned counsel would assail the order on various grounds. It is submitted that the substance of accusation has not been stated in Annexure-VI order. Though it is stated in the order that the Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha Police Station has submitted the copy of FIR and other details of Crime Nos.928/2012 and 200/13, no other details are mentioned in the order. The order is also silent as regards the relevant factors which influenced the mind of the Magistrate to form an opinion that the petitioner is likely to disturb peace and tranquility in a particular locality and in order to prevent the same, it is necessary to take preventive action against him. It is urged that the materials before the learned Magistrate was thoroughly inadequate to arrive at the requisite satisfaction. It is also submitted that by virtue of sub clause 6 of section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 3 Crl.M.C.5919/2016 the proceeding initiated is to be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of its commencement and if such enquiry is not completed, the proceeding has to be terminated. No special reasons has been recorded by the learned magistrate to continue with the proceedings. It is also submitted that crime are remote in time and could not have been the basis for initiation of proceeding under section 107 of the code. - 5.The learned Public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that it was based on the report made by the Sub Inspector of Police to the effect that the petitioner is likely to indulge in further criminal acts causing breach of peace and public tranquility in the area that preventive action was initiated. - 6.I have perused the materials on record as well. - 7.Under Section 107 of Code, whenever a Magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace, he may require such person to show cause why Crl.M.C.5919/2016 4 he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one year. This has to be done in the manner provided in Section 111. That Section requires a Magistrate to make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received. The _sine qua non_ for the institution of a proceeding under the Section is that the Magistrate shall be of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The Magistrate, has, under the law, to satisfy himself that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility before taking action. For that purpose, the Magistrate before issuing notice under 111 must record the grounds, which, in his opinion as sufficient for proceeding further. ## 8.In **Madhu Limaye and Another v. SDM, Monghyr** [AIR 1971 SC 2486] the Apex Court, in para 36 of the judgment, had cautioned the Executive Magistrate Crl.M.C.5919/2016 5 ## exercising powers under Section 107 in the following ## manner:- _"We have seen the provisions of Sec. 107. That section says that action is to be taken in the manner here-in-after provided and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous that this liberty should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to emphasize the safeguards built into the procedure because from there will arise the consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of public order or in the interest of general public."_ It was further observed in Para 37 as under:- _"Since the person to be proceeded against, has to show cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace or disturbance of the_ Crl.M.C.5919/2016 6 _public tranquility at his hands. Although the section speaks of the ''substance' of the information, it does not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the information but it must give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word ''substance' means the essence of the most important parts of the information."_ 9.On perusing Annexure-VI order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in two crimes could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioner herein. (see **Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala** [2014 (3) KLT 837; **Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala** [2009 (4) KHC 929]). The reasons which led the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceeding is not disclosed in the order. In the absence of any evidence Crl.M.C.5919/2016 7 rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause why he should not enter into recognisances, and on his failure , to make an order under the section. (see **Moidu v. State of Kerala** [1982 KLT 578]. It is also not open to the Magistrate to draw up proceedings against persons under Section 107 based on vague hunches or general statements. Annexure-VI order does not state in what way or with reference to what matter the petitioner was likely to commit a breach or peace. There was no tangible evidence before the learned Magistrate that some definite Act is contemplated, which Act, if committed, is likely to cause breach of peace. Annexure-VI order does not fulfill the requirement under Section 111 and reveals total non application of mind. 10.Furthermore more than 6 months have elapsed from the date of commencement of the enquiry and it does not appear that the learned magistrate has recorded special Crl.M.C.5919/2016 8 reasons to continue the proceedings. I also take note of the fact that one of the crimes it is mentioned in the order has already been quashed by this court by Annexure III order. The petitioners therefore entitled to succeed. The proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly this petition is allowed. M.C.No.20 of 2014 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha, will stand quashed. **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps