Kerala High Court
Ansu vs State Of Kerala on 19 October, 2011
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2012/7TH JYAISHTA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 1012 of 2012 ()
--------------------------
MC.NO.21/2011 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,THIRUVALLA
CRIME NO.247/2011 OF PERUMPATTY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
-------------------------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
ANSU, AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.HAMMED RAWTHER, KUNNUMPURATHU HOSUE, VAYIPUR,
KOTTANGAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
---------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SURESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
CRMC.NO.1012/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEX A COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.247 OF 2011 DATED 19/10/2011
ANNEX B COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10/10/2011 PREPARED BY THE SI OF
POLICE, PERUMPATTY POLICE STATION.
ANNEX C COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 16/12/2011 ISSUED BY SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.1012 OF 2012
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2012
ORDER
Proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code' were initiated against the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla and it is numbered as M.C No.21/2011. Such proceedings were commenced on the basis of an F.I.R and also a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Perumbatty Police Station. Annexure C is the summons issued to the petitioner to appear before the Magistrate to answer the aforesaid proceedings. Petitioner is involved in some criminal cases, is not disputed by his counsel. That is also borne out by Annexure A F.I.R prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police. However, the registering of F.I.R to proceed against the petitioner under Section 107 of the Code, by the police, and also summons issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate acting on such F.I.R as if he is an accused person in such proceeding is assailed by the counsel for petitioner contending that it is not only irregular but totally illegal. The learned Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded that the registration of F.I.R against the petitioner to proceed against him under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C as if it was an offence was improper and irregular. Crl.M.C No.1012 /2012 2 Section 107 of the Cr.P.C is intended to avoid breach of peace by directing persons who are likely to commit such breach on account of their criminal antecedents. It is in fact a security procedure taken as a precautionary measure from those who are likely to infringe peace unless they are restrained from doing so. When information is supplied to the Magistrate that it is necessary to take security from a person who is likely to commit breach of peace by ordering him to execute a bond for keeping of peace for a particular period the person is proceeded against not as an accused. In such proceeding there is also no question of such person tried for any offence other than why he should furnish security for good behaviour in view of the apprehension that he is likely to commit breach of peace. In the given case, apart from registering F.I.R, Annexure B report has also been filed by the Sub Inspector narrating the circumstances which warrant initiation of 107 proceedings under the Code against the petitioner. Though the F.I.R, Annexure A, registered against the petitioner is found unsustainable, looking into Annexure B report filed by the Sub Inspector of police, no impropriety can be imputed against the Sub Divisional Magistrate for taking cognizance at least on such report to commence proceedings against the petitioner as to why he should not furnish a bond to maintain peace. No doubt, Annexure C Crl.M.C No.1012 /2012 3 summons issued to the petitioner as if he was an accused person was improper. He should be given a notice under Form No.15 supplying him the information as to why he should be called upon to furnish security for good behavior by executing a bond as under Section 107 of the Code. Annexure A F.I.R and also Annexure C summons issued to the accused are quashed. Cognizance taken by the Executive Magistrate shall be treated as having been taken under Annexure B for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 107 of the Code. Sub Divisional Magistrate shall issue him a summons as under Form No.14 in Schedule 2 of the Code with the substance of information received that he is likely to commit breach of peace calling upon him to show cause why he should not furnish security for good behaviour, fixing the date of his appearance.
Subject to the above direction, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE
//True copy// P.A to Judge