Shaleel Khan v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1945`** ## **`CRL.MC NO. 4208 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTMC 32/2023 OF SUB DVL.MAGISTRATE,PALA`** ``` PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` SHALEELKHAN AGED52YEARS S/OPAULOSE,,VADAKKEKOTTARAM, NADUVILEVILLAGE,VAIKOM, - KOTTAYAM,PIN686141 BYADVS. C.S.MANILAL S.NIDHEESH ``` ``` RESPONDENT/S: ``` ``` THESUBDIVISIONALMAGISTRATE OFFICEOFTHESUBDIVISIONALMAGISTRATE, - MINICIVILSTATION,PALA,KOTTAYAM,PIN686575 ``` ``` SRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON26.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.4208OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ORDER** The proceeding initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pala, 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 on 01.06.2023 and to show cause why he should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.25,000/with two solvent sureties for the like sum for keeping the peace for a term of one year. 3. The learned counsel would assail the order on various grounds. It is submitted that the substance of the accusation has not been stated in Annexure-2 order. All that is mentioned is that the Magistrate is satisfied that the petitioner is likely to commit wrongful activities based on a report submitted by the Station House Officer, Vaikom Police Station and nothing more. It is submitted that the order is 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 to prevent the same, it is necessary to take preventive action against him. It is urged that the ``` CRL.MCNO.4208OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` materials before the learned Magistrate were thoroughly inadequate to arrive at the requisite satisfaction. Finally, it is contended that the preliminary order under Section 111 r/w 107 does not meet the requirement of Section 111 of the Code. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in **Moidu v. State of Kerala[1]** and the decision of the learned Single Judges in **Peethambaran v. State of Kerala[2]** , **Santhosh M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala[3]** , and **Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala[4]** . 4. The learned Public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that it was based on the report made by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vaikom Police Station, to the effect that the petitioner was repeatedly involving himself in criminal offenses that preventive action was initiated. 5. I have perused the materials on record as well. 6. Under Section 107 of the 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. > 1 1982 KHC 139: 1982 KLT 578 > 2 1980 KLT 876 > 3 2014 (2) KLD 519 > 4 2015 (2) KLD 889 ``` CRL.MCNO.4208OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 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, under the law, has to satisfy himself that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility before taking action. In the case on hand, Annexure-2 is purportedly a notice issued under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. It is not drawn up as prescribed under section 111 of the Cr.P.C. All that is mentioned that it has been made to appear that the petitioner is likely to cause breach of peace and disturbed tranquility and nothing more. 7. In **Madhu Limaye and another v. SDM, Monghyr[5]** , 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." ## 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 > 5 AIR 1971 SC 2486 ``` CRL.MCNO.4208OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 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." 8. On perusing Annexure-2 order, it is evident that the said order is passed under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact, as and when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate 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 such period, not exceeding one year. I find that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The fact that the petitioner was involved in a crime 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**[6] ; **Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala[7]** . In the 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 > 6 2014 (3) KLT 837 > 7 2009 (4) KHC 929 ``` CRL.MCNO.4208OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` enter into recognizances, 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-2 order does not state in what way or with reference to what matter the petitioner was likely to commit a breach of peace. There was no tangible evidence before the learned Magistrate that some definite Act is contemplated, which Act, if committed, is likely to cause a breach of peace. Annexure-2 order does not fulfill the requirement under Section 111 and reveals the total non-application of mind. 9. The learned Magistrate should have borne in mind that the object of the Section is prevention and not punishment 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 to prevent the 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 the law. ``` CRL.MCNO.4208OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` 10. As such, in view of such blatant abuse of the powers under Sections 107 and 111 Cr. P.C., it is only just and proper, to secure the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of powers of the Court, that Annexure-2 order be quashed. The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in M.C.No. 32 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Pala, are quashed. ## **Sd/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** ``` avs ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.4208OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4208/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure-1TRUECOPYOFTHEBAILORDERINCRL.M.P814/2023OF SESSIONSCOURT,KOTTAYAM Annexure-2TRUECOPYOFTHEPRELIMINARYORDEROFTHE RESPONDENTDATED11.5.2023 Annexure-3TRUECOPYOFTHENOTICEOFTHERESPONDENTDATED 11.5.2023 ```