Suresh v. State of Kerala

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV WEDNESDAY,THE7[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/17THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 AGAINSTTHEORDER/JUDGMENTMC200/2022OFSUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,PALAKKAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` SURESH AGED40YEARS RESIDINGATROSEGARDEN,KODUNTHARAPPULLYVALIYA - GRAMAM,KODUNTHARAPULLY.P.O,PALAKKAD,PIN 678004. BYADVS. KRISHNAPRASAD.S SINDHUSKAMATH SWAPNAS.K. ROHININAIR SURAJKUMARD. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE:`** ``` 1STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,PIN682031. 2THEINSPECTOROFPOLICE TOWNSOUTHPOLICESTATION,COIMBATORERD, - KUNATHURMEDU,PALAKKAD.,PIN678013. 3THESUB-DIVISIONALMAGISTRATE - RDOOFFICE,OTTAPALAM,PALAKKAD.,PIN679101. SRI.TRRENJITH,SRPP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 07.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **ORDER** This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.6.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate( ‘SDM’ for short), Palakkad, invoking the powers under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. As per the impugned order issued under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C., the Sub Divisional Magistrate has called upon the petitioner to execute a cash bond for Rs 10,000/ ( Rupees Ten thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum for keeping the peace for a period of three years under Section 107 of the CrPC. Annexure A6 has also been issued, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the SDM on 20th of July, 2022. 3. Sri. Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot be sustained under law. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is conducting a non-banking financial institution by the name “Swiss Finance” after obtaining Annexure-A1 money lending license from the Commercial Tax Department. According to the learned counsel, on the date of registration of the case, the petitioner herein was having a valid money lending license. He would contend that a false crime was registered as Crime No. 266/2022 against the petitioner by one Sasikumar alleging that the petitioner ``` CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` invited the aforesaid person to his office and snatched his cheque books and other documents. This Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the aforesaid crime. It is on the basis of the above crime that the 2nd respondent submitted a request before the SDM to initiate proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that immediately thereafter, Annexure-A5 preliminary order was issued, and thereafter Annexure-A6 order was issued asking the petitioner to appear and show cause why he shall not be required to execute a bond to keep the peace for a term of one year. The learned counsel submitted that there was absolutely no material before the learned magistrate to show that there was an imminent danger or that there is a likelihood of disturbance of peace and tranquility in the area. It is urged by the learned counsel that before proceeding to invoke the powers under Section 107 of the Code, the learned Magistrate was bound to consider the materials placed before him and to satisfy himself that there are sufficient grounds for invoking the provision and to call up the individual to execute a bond as contemplated therein for a fixed period. According to the learned counsel, all that is mentioned in the order is that the petitioner has involved in Crime No. 266/2022 of the Palakkad Town Police Station and he is likely to endanger the peaceful and tranquil atmosphere within the station limits and nothing more. Finally, it is contended that the preliminary order under Section 107 did 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** [1982 KHC 139] ``` CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` and the decision of the learned Single Judges in **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]. 4. The learned Public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that based on the report received from the Sub Inspector of Police, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was convinced and satisfied that the petitioner herein pose a real threat to public peace and tranquility. Referring to Section 107 of the Code and to its objective, it is submitted that the provision is not intended as a punitive action but a preventive one, and according to him, the learned Magistrate was well justified in acting on such information. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. 6. As is evident from the order, it is mentioned that the Sub Inspector of Police, Palakkad Police Station station has reported that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.266/2022 registered inter alia under the Money Lenders Act, 1958. It is also alleged that numerous complaints have been received by the police officer. What those complaints are and their details are not mentioned. All that is mentioned in Annexure A4 report is that the cheque books and deeds of the complainant were snatched by the petitioner and his employee when the complainant had gone to the registered office of the petitioner. From Annexure A3 FIR it could be revealed that the alleged incident was on 31.3.22 at 12 pm, and the information was furnished to the ``` CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` police only on 2.4.2022 at 8.15 pm. If as a matter of fact, the title deeds and cheques were robbed by the accused, there is no reason why the de facto complainant waited for two days to set the law in motion. None of these aspects crossed the mind of the SDM before calling upon the petitioner to execute a bond. 7. It would be relevant to have a look at Section 107 of the Code. “107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the 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, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit. (2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.” 8. 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. The sine qua non for the institution of a proceeding under the Section is that the Magistrate shall be of ``` CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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 Section 111, must record the grounds, which, in his opinion, is sufficient for proceeding further. 9. In other words, the provision does not contemplate that the learned Magistrate shall draw up the proceedings automatically whenever information of the kind mentioned in the section is received by the Magistrate. Any action can be initiated only if the Magistrate is satisfied and if he is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The Magistrate has to exercise his discretion with reference to the credibility and sufficiency of the information received by him. The prior formation of the opinion by the Magistrate under Section 107 is that which gives him jurisdiction to proceed further under Section 111 of the Code. Though the initiation of the proceedings depends on the Magistrate's subjective satisfaction and in his discretion, there should be cogent materials before him on which a reasonable opinion for initiating the action could be formed. ( See ## **Peethambaran** ) 10. 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:- ``` CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` "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 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." 11. In the absence of any material rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties to show cause why he should not 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. The impugned orders do 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-5 order does not fulfill the requirement under Section 111 and ``` CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## discloses total non-application of mind. 12. The learned Magistrate ought to 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 with a view to preventing the commission of offenses involving a 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 offense, it is essential that the power should be exercised strictly in accordance with the law. 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-5 order be quashed. The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in M.C.No.200/2022 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Palakkad, are quashed. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** Sru ``` CRL.MCNO.3714OF2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3714/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES AnnexureA1ATRUECOPYOFTHEMONEYLENDING LICENSEISSUEDDATED01-07-2020FROM THECOMMERCIALTAXDEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENTOFKERALA. AnnexureA2ATRUECOPYOFTHEMONEYLENDING LICENSEISSUEDTOTHEPETITIONERDATED 28-05-2022. AnnexureA3ATRUECOPYOFTHEFIRMADEINCRIME NO.266OF2022OFPALAKKADTOWNSOUTH POLICESTATIONDATED02-04-2022. AnnexureA4ATRUECOPYOFTHEREPORTSENTBYTHE 2NDRESPONDENTTOTHE3RDRESPONDENT WHICHISUNDATED. AnnexureA5ATRUECOPYOFTHEPRELIMINARYORDER DATED24-06-2022,PASSEDBYTHE3RD RESPONDENT. AnnexureA6ATRUECOPYOFTHESUMMONSISSUEDTO THEPETITIONERBYTHE3RDRESPONDENT DATED24-06-2022. ```