Sameer K. and Muhammed Shereef v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod; Chandera Police Station; State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2016/31ST SRAVANA, 1938** **Crl.MC.No. 3777 of 2016** **---------------------------------------** ## **M.C.NO. 152/2016 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD** ## **-------------------** **PETITIONER(S) :** **--------------------------** **1. SAMEER K., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MUMTAZ, RESIDING AT SABEENA MANZIL, KAPPUKULAM, NADAKAVU, UDINOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. MUHAMMED SHEREEF, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SUHRABI, RESIDING AT THANKAYAM QUARTERS, NORTH TRIKARIPUR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI** **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :** - **----------------------------------------** **1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 121.** **2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 123.** **3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-08-2016, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.No. 3778 OF 2016 AND Crl.MC.No. 3791 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **Crl.MC.No. 3777 of 2016** **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :** **ANNEXURE A1:** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2016 IN M.C.NO. 152/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** Msd. ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J ---------------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos.3777, 3778 & 3791 of 2016 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of August, 2016** ## **O R D E R** - 1.The petitioners in all these cases challenge the proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for brevity). - 2.All these petitioners have been directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate at 11.00 a.m. on 13.4.2016 and to show cause why they should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like sum for keeping peace for a term of one year. - 3.In all these cases separate orders have been issued stating that certain crimes have been registered against the petitioners at Chandera Police Station and that the Sub Divisional Magistrate was fully satisfied from the Crl.M.C.3777/2016 & Conn.Cases 2 report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera Police Station that the petitioners are likely to cause breach of peace and public tranquility. Since identical questions are raised, all these petitions are taken up and disposed of together. - 4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. - 5.The learned counsel would assail the order on various grounds. It is submitted that the substance of accusation has not been stated in Annexure-AI order. Though it is stated in the order that the Sub Inspector of the Chandera Police Station has submitted a report and the fact that the petitioners have involved themselves in Crime Nos.725/2015, 728/2015 & 749 of 2015 of the Chandera Police station, 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 petitioners are likely to disturb peace and Crl.M.C.3777/2016 & Conn.Cases 3 tranquility in a particular locality and in order to prevent the same, it is necessary to take preventive action against them. It is urged that the materials before the learned Magistrate was thoroughly inadequate to arrive at the requisite satisfaction. Finally it is contended that the preliminary order under Section 107 did not meet the requirement of Section 111 of the Code. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in **Moidu v. State of Kerala** [1982 KHC 139 : 1982 KLT 578] and the decision of the learned Single Judges in **Peethambaran v. State of Kerala** [1980 KHC 239 :1980 KLT 876 : ILR 1980 (2) Ker. 589], **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]. - 6.The learned Public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that it was based on the report made by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chandera to the effect that the petitioners are likely to indulge in further criminal acts Crl.M.C.3777/2016 & Conn.Cases 4 causing breach of peace and public tranquility in the area that preventive action was initiated. 7.I have perused the materials on record as well. 8.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 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 Crl.M.C.3777/2016 & Conn.Cases 5 Magistrate before issuing notice under 111 must record the grounds, which, in his opinion as sufficient for proceeding further. 9.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 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."_ Crl.M.C.3777/2016 & Conn.Cases 6 ## 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 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."_ 10.On perusing Annexure-A1 order in these cases, 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 petitioners are involved in some crimes could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioners 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]). In the Crl.M.C.3777/2016 & Conn.Cases 7 absence of any evidence 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 A1 order does not state in what way or with reference to what matter the petitioners were 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-A1 order in these cases does not fulfill the requirement under Section 111 and reveals total non application of mind. - 11.The learned Magistrate ought to have borne in mind that the object of the Section is prevention and not punishment Crl.M.C.3777/2016 & Conn.Cases 8 of crimes. It is not intended to punish persons for anything that they have done in the past, but to prevent them from doing in future something that might occasion a breach of the peace. The section is designed to enable the Magistrate to take measures with a view to prevent commission of offences involving breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility. Wide powers have been conferred on the Magistrates specified in this section and as the matter affects the liberty of the subject who has not been found guilty of an offence, it is essential that the power should be exercised strictly in accordance with law. 12.In the result, these petitions are allowed. All further proceedings pending against the petitioners in M.C.Nos.152/2016, 144/2016 & 95/2016 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kasaragod are quashed. **Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE** vps