Varghese P John @ Prakash John v State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE6[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/16THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.3965OF2023 ``` ## **`AGAINST MC 139/2023 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT, FORT KOCHI`** ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` VARGHESEP.JOHN@PRAKASHJOHN AGED60YEARS S/OJOHN,PAINUNGALHOUSE,KONGORPILLI,ALANGAD - VILLAGE,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT.,PIN683518 ``` ``` BYADVN.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTEDBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE,NORTHPARAVUR POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMTHROUGHPUBLICPROSECUTOR, - HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 ``` ``` SRITRRENJITH,SRPP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 06.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3977/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 2 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE6[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/16THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.3977OF2023 ``` ``` AGAINSTMCNO.140/2023OFSUBDIVISIONALCOURT,FORTKOCHI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` SOJIJOSEPH AGED50YEARS S/OJOSEPH,THEKKINEDATHHOUSE,KOONAMMAVE,KOTTUVALLY - VILLAGE,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN683518 ``` ``` BYADVN.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER`** ``` STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE,NORTHPARAVUR POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMTHROUGHPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 ``` ``` BYSRI.M.P.PRASANTH,PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 06.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3965/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 3 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE6[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/16THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.3979OF2023 ``` ``` AGAINSTMCNO.138/2023OFSUBDIVISIONALCOURT,FORTKOCHI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` SONYJOSEPH AGED46YEARS S/OJOSEPH,THEKKINEDATHHOUSE,KOONAMMAVE,KOTTUVALLY - VILLAGE,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN683513 ``` ``` BYADVN.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE,NORTHPARAVUR POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMTHROUGHPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 ``` ``` BYSRI.M.P.PRASHANTH,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 06.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3965/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 4 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE6[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/16THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.3986OF2023 ``` ``` AGAINSTMCNO.141/2023OFSUBDIVISIONALCOURT,FORTKOCHI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` NILSONANTONY AGED35YEARS S/OANTONY,KOTTAKKALHOUSE,VALLUVALLYKARA, - KOTTUVALLYVILLAGE,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT.,PIN683518 ``` ``` BYADVN.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE,NORTHPARAVUR POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMTHROUGHPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 ``` ``` BYSRI.T.R.RENJITH,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 06.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3965/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 5 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE6[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/16THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.3991OF2023 ``` ``` AGAINSTMCNO.142/2023OFSUBDIVISIONALCOURT,FORTKOCHI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` JIPSONDEVASSY AGED38YEARS S/ODEVASSY,PUTHUSSERYHOUSE,KOCHALBHAGATH, KOONAMAVUKARA,KOTTUVALLYVILLAGE,ERNAKULAM - DISTRICT.,PIN683518 ``` ``` BYADVN.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTEDBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE,NORTHPARAVUR POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMTHROUGHPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 BYSRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 06.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3965/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 6 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 4003 OF 2023`** ``` AGAINSTMCNO.143/2023OFSUBDIVISIONALCOURT,FORTKOCHI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` BINUJOY AGED40YEARS S/OJOY,PUTHUSSERYHOUSE,VALLUVALLYBHAGAM,KOONAMAVU KARA,KOTTUVALLYVILLAGE,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT., - PIN683518 ``` ``` BYADVN.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE,NORTHPARAVUR POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMTHROUGHPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 ``` ``` BYSRI.VIPINNARAYAN,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 06.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3965/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 7 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE6[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/16THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.4005OF2023 ``` ``` AGAINSTMCNO.145/2023OFSUBDIVISIONALCOURT,FORTKOCHI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` ANTONY AGED71YEARS, S/OLONAPPAN,PADYATTILHOUSE,VALLUVALLYKARA, - KOTTUVALLYVILLAGE,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN683518 BYADVN.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE,NORTHPARAVUR POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMTHROUGHPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 BYSRI.T.R.RENJITH,SR.PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 06.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3965/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 8 ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE6[TH]DAYOFJUNE2023/16THJYAISHTA,1945 CRL.MCNO.4017OF2023 ``` ``` AGAINSTMCNO.144/2023OFSUBDIVISIONALCOURT,FORTKOCHI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:`** ``` BAIJUPOULOSE AGED43YEARS S/OPOULOSE,KOTTAKALHOUSE,KOONAMAVUKARA,KOTTUVALLY - VILLAGE,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN683518 ``` ``` BYADVN.A.SHAFEEK ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:`** ``` STATEOFKERALA REPRESENTEDBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE,NORTHPARAVUR POLICESTATION,ERNAKULAMTHROUGHPUBLICPROSECUTOR, – HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN682031 ``` ``` BYSRI.M.P.PRASHANTH,PP ``` ``` THISCRIMINALMISC.CASEHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 06.06.2023,ALONGWITHCrl.MC.3965/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES, THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYPASSEDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 9 ## **ORDER** These petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.4.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kochi invoking the powers under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). The impugned orders, which are identically worded, call upon the petitioners to attend the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 11.5.2023 at 11 am and show cause why they shall not be ordered to execute a cash bond for Rs 100,000/ ( Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum for keeping the peace for a period of one year under Section 107 of the CrPC. 2. Sri N.A. Shafeek, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged before this Court 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, it would be pellucid even on a casual perusal of the order that the learned Magistrate has not cared to apply his mind to the Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 10 facts of the case and he was acting at the dictates of the Police. All that is mentioned in the order, which is almost identical in all the cases, except the name of the party against whom the order is issued, is that Crime No 83/23 of the North Paravur Police Station has been registered and nothing more. It is urged by the learned counsel that the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction under S.107, Criminal Procedure Code is imminent danger to peace and tranquility. It is contended that there was no material before the learned Magistrate to arrive at an inference that there is every likelihood of an imminent breach of peace within his jurisdictional limits. 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: 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]. 3. 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 petitioners herein Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 11 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. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. 5. The orders which are impugned in these petitions are identically worded. Even the date on which the petitioners herein have been asked to appear and the number of the crime in which they are involved is the same. It would therefore be apposite to extract the order for convenience: ## **IN THE COURT OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI** (Present: Vishnuraj P IAS) MC.139/23 No.88/TD/2023/BI North Paravur Police Station - Petitioner: State represented by the Inspector of Police, North Paravur Police Station Counter Petitioner:- Varghese P John@ Prakash John 60/23 S/o John .Painungal House Kongorpilli, Alangad Village.Ernakulam District. 4841954805 ## **ORDER UNDER SECTION 111 CrPC, READ WITH CrPC** Whereas it has been made to appear to me by reliable information placed before this Court by the Inspector of Police North Paravur Police Station through the Deputy Superintendent of Police Munambam. I gist of which is given below that you the Counter Petitioner mentioned above is likely to commit Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 12 breach of peace or do wrongful acts by which breach of peace will probably be occasion in the localities of Kochal kara within the limits of North Paravur Police Station within my jurisdiction and whereas I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings under Section 107 CrPC. Now therefore 1, Vishnuraj P., IAS, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi do hereby direct and require you the Counter Petitioner to attend this Court at Fort Kochi at 11-05-2023 on 11 am and show cause why you should not be ordered to execute a cash bond for 1,00,000/- (Rupees One 1 Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum amount for keeping peace for a period of one year under Section 107 CrPC. ## **Substance of Information** The Sub Inspector of Police, North Paravur Police Station has reported that the Counter Petitioner above is endangering the peaceful and tranquil atmosphere of Kochal kara, and nearby localities. It is reported that the Counter petitioner involved in Cr.83/23 of North Paravur Police station it is also reported that highly necessary to prevent the Counter Petitioner from wrongful acts likely to commit within the localities. From the circumstances explained above, I am prima facie convinced that the Counter Petitioner poses real threat to public peace and tranquility in that localities and security proceedings U/s 107 have to be initiated against the Counter Petitioner. Hence this Order. Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 27th day April 2023 Sd/Sub Divisional Magistrate Fort Kochi To: The Counter Petitioner (Through the inspector of Police. North Paravur Police Station For service and return. The served copy should reach this court before the hearing date) -- Copy to The Inspector of Police North Paravur Police Station ## 6. As is evident from the order, it is mentioned that all the petitioners Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 13 are involved in Crime No.82/23 of the North Paravoor Police Station. What those criminal cases are and how they are related to the apprehension of the breach of the peace are not evident from the preliminary order. The nature of the crime, the offence involved, and how the petitioners are likely to endanger the peaceful and tranquil atmosphere of the area is also not mentioned in the order. 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 Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 14 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 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 Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 15 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:- "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' Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 16 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 petitioners were 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 A order does not fulfill the requirement under Section 111 and 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 Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 17 take measures with a view 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. 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-A order be quashed. The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in M.C.No.139/2023, M.C.No.140/2023, M.C.No.138/2023, M.C.No.141/2023, M.C.No.142/2023, M.C.No.143/2023, M.C.No.145/2023 and M.C.No.144/2023 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Fort Kochi, are quashed. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** NS Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 18 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3965/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES Annexure-ATHETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDUNDER111 OFCRPCDATED27.04.2023 ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 19 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3977/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-A ``` ``` THETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDUNDER111 OFCRPCDATED27.04.2023 ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 20 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3979/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-ATHETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDUNDER111 OFCRPCDATED27.04.2023 ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 21 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3986/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-ATHETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDUNDER111 OFCRPCDATED27.04.2023 ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 22 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3991/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-ATHETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDUNDER111 OFCRPCDATED27.04.2023 ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 23 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4003/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-A ``` ``` THETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDUNDER111 OFCRPCDATED27.04.2023INM.C.NO.143/2023 (NO.92/TD/2023/B1)PENDINGBEFORETHECOURT OFTHESUBDIVISIONALMAGISTRATE,FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAMDISTRICT) ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 24 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4005/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-ATHETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDUNDER111 OFCRPCDATED27.04.2023 ``` Crl.M.C Nos.3965 of 2023 & connected cases 25 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4017/2023`** ``` PETITIONERANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-ATHETRUECOPYOFTHEORDERPASSEDUNDER111 OFCRPCDATED27.04.2023 ```