Madras High Court
Srirengam vs The Administrative Executive ... on 30 November, 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED : 15.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.21560 of 2018, 9333 of 2020, 3065, 3066,
3710, 4155, 4476, 5016, 5800, 5972, 7451, 7787, 8957, 9285, 11922,
11959, 12151 and 12162 of 2021, 9489, 9627, 10027, 10166, 10342,
10466, 10566, 10706, 10753, 10771, 10906, 11400, 11455, 11522,
11528, 11742, 12372, 12428, 12650, 12776, 13017, 13027, 13068 and
13093 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.9983 of 2018 and 162 of 2019, 4370 of 2020,
1660, 1658, 1659, 2071, 2523, 2524, 2869, 3355, 3439, 3857, 3956,
3957, 4578, 4580, 4754, 6092, 6114, 6233, 6243 and 6245 of 2021,
4578, 4580, 4833, 4915, 5125, 5126, 5192, 5345, 5385, 5467, 5468,
5477, 5487, 5488, 5565, 5794, 5831, 5832, 5866, 5867, 5869, 5870,
6007, 6323, 6325, 6361, 6455, 6458, 6575, 6576, 6686, 6687, 6694,
6715, 6716, 6728 and 6729 of 2021,
In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21560 of 2018
Srirengam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Administrative Executive Magistrate/
Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Law and Order,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Tirunelveli Town Police Station,
Tirunelveli. ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/76
PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in EMC.No.
105 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent herein dated 30.11.2018 and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side)
COMMON ORDER
All these petitions are filed seeking quashment of the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against these petitioners.
1.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21560 of 2018:-
The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent herein sent a proposal to the 1st respondent to initiate action against the petitioner under Section 111 of Cr.P.C., based upon which, the notice under Section 113 of Cr.P.C. has been issued on 30.11.2018 stating that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.1022 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 307, 366, 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC and in Crime No.1037 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/76
2.Since there is a likelihood of breach of peace among the public, due to the conduct of the petitioner, proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C have been initiated against him and he was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Challenging this notice, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is no application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent as to the facts and circumstances of the case and the subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent before initiating the proceedings. There was no complaint against the petitioner by the local people. During the relevant time, the petitioner was in Puzhal Jail, Chennai to see his paternal uncle, who was confined in the said Jail. No substance of the information has been mentioned in the proceedings. In one case, the petitioner was acquitted and only one other case is pending.
2.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9333 of 2020:-
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and 40 other persons, who belongs to SC/PL community, resided at Sathirapatti Village. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioners and others tried to enter into the Angalaeswari Amman Temple, Tiruvengadam, which belongs to the other community people and because of the opposition of other community people, a case in Crime https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/76 No.40 of 2020 has been registered against this petitioners and others for the offence under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. by the 2nd respondent. So, on the basis of the proceedings, a recommendation has also been sent to the 1st respondent to initiate the proceedings, upon which, the impugned proceeding has been initiated and the impugned notice dated 01.06.2020 has been issued, directing the petitioners to attend the enquiry.
2.Challenging the aforesaid notice, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is absolutely no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent before initiating the proceedings. The aforesaid temple belongs to all community people surrounding this villages. In respect of the construction of Kalyana Mandapam, the dispute arose between the parties. So, a peace committee meeting was held on 06.02.2020 before the Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam, in which, it was decided to stop the construction work.
3.Further, the petitioners were not permitted to participate in the Shivarathiri Festival. In respect of the dispute between the parties, two FIRs have been registered in Crime Nos.34 and 40 of 2020 arraying the parties as 'A' and 'B'. No proceeding has been initiated against the other community people, who are arrayed as 'B' party in the aforesaid FIRs. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/76
3.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3065 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is the contestant of the local body election that took place recently and he was not involved in any criminal case so far. However, the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C has been initiated by the 1st respondent, on the basis of the information furnished by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice under Section 110 Cr.P.C, directing the petitioner to execute a bond for good behavior for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per Section 110 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner involved in Crime No.2020 of 2020 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. So, the proceeding was initiated in L.I.R.C.No.14 of 2020.
Challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent did not reflect any application of mind as to the facts and circumstances of the case and the information furnished to him by the 2nd respondent.
4.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3066 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Trichy District, proceedings were initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against these petitioners in Na.Ka.No.A1/2354/2020 dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/76 01.02.2021. The impugned notice was issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. stating that there is a group rivalry between two groups in respect of a pathway dispute. There is a likelihood of breach of peace and tranquillity in that area. So, proceedings were initiated and notice was issued.
2.Challenging the aforesaid proceedings, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction with regard to the information furnished by the Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Trichy District. The 1st petitioner herein was act as Advocate for one of the groups. So, he has been wrongly arrayed as party. The petitioners did not claim any right over the disputed pathway.
So, there is no subjective satisfaction with regard to the information furnished by the Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Trichy District.
5.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3710 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent herein has sent a report to the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings against this petitioner under Section 107 of Cr.P.C, based upon which, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C against this petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/76 without any application of mind. No subjective satisfaction is also recorded by the 1st respondent in the impugned notice.
2.The dispute is only with regard to the property of the petitioner.
So there is no question of breach of public peace and tranquillity. He has also sent a representation dated 01.03.2021, which has not been properly considered.
6.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as District Secretary of Ramanathapuram. The petitioner never involved in any criminal offence. Without application of proper mind, the 1st respondent, on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent, has issued the impugned notice and initiated the proceedings in M.C.No.33 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021 on the ground that the petitioner indulged in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity.
2.Challenging the aforesaid notice, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction with regard to the information furnished by the 1st respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/76
3.Counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioner encroached the Government Poramboke land in S.Nos.100/1 and 100/11 situated at Nallirukkai Village. Upon receipt of the complaint from the Panchayat President, a case in Crime No.140 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (ii) of IPC has been registered against the petitioner. Because of his activity, there is a likelihood of breach of peace among the public and tranquillity. Hence, the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C has been initiated.
7.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4476 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as Panchayat Ward Member, during the local body election. Due to the political enmity, the proceedings have been initiated against this petitioner under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., by the 1st respondent, on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent.
2.In the impugned notice, it has been mentioned that the petitioner indulged in activities directly and indirectly, which causes breach of peace among the village people. Hence, the proceeding under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/76 Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated. It is challenged on the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent before issuing the impugned notice and no substance of the information has also been mentioned in the impugned notice as the amount of bond to be executed, the terms of which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties are not mentioned in the impugned notice.
8.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5016 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent made a recommendation to the 1st respondent to initiate action against this petitioner under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. Based upon the recommendation, proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent against this petitioner in M.C.No.82 of 2021. Challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that before initiating the proceedings, legal requirements have not been followed and the substance of the information has not been mentioned in the impugned notice. The impugned proceedings have been initiated on the ground that the petitioner may involve in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/76
9.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5800 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that proceedings were initiated against him in M.C.No.83 of 2021. In the impugned proceedings, it has been mentioned that the petitioner may involve in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity. So, challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction with regard to the information furnished by the 2nd respondent and substance of the information has not been mentioned in the impugned notice.
10.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5972 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that proceedings against this petitioner were initiated in M.C.No.84 of 2021 by the 1st respondent, on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner was permitted to appear for enquiry and execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. The impugned notice was issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction with regard to the information furnished by the 2nd respondent for initiating the proceedings. Substance of the information has also not been mentioned in the impugned notice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/76
11.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7451 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent, proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C were initiated against this petitioner in M.C.No.372 of 2020 dated 18.02.2021 by the 1st respondent. The petitioner was permitted to appear before the Enquiry Officer on the ground that he may involve in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity. The impugned notice was issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent before issuing the impugned notice and substance of the information has not been mentioned in the impugned notice.
12.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7787 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent, proceedings were initiated under Section 111 of Cr.P.C in M.C.No.381 of 2020, dated 15.02.2021 against this petitioner by the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner is involved in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity. Challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that a case in Crime No.37 of 2020 for the offences punishable https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/76 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC was registered against this petitioner and another case in Crime No.231 of 2020 was also registered against this petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 435 and 506(ii) of IPC. In Crime No.37 of 2020, the petitioner was acquitted and the other case was closed as mistake of fact, on the basis of the investigation. So, there is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent herein with regard to the information furnished by the 2nd respondent. No substance of the information has also been mentioned in the impugned notice.
13.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8957 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, proceedings were initiated in M.C.No.93 of 2021, dated 13.04.2021 under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. against these petitioners, who are arrayed as 'B' party in the aforesaid proceedings.
2.In the impugned notice, it has been mentioned that there are two factions operating in T.Veppankulam Village to conduct the temple festival of Sree Angala Parameshwari Amman Kovil. Because of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/76 rivalry, there is a possibility of breach of peace and so, the proceedings were initiated under Section 110 Cr.P.C., upon which, impugned notice has been issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
3.Challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that arraying the rival groups as 'A' party and 'B' party in a proceedings under Section 111 of Cr.P.C is not valid under law. Without proper application of mind and without arriving at the subjective satisfaction of the information furnished by the 2nd respondent, proceedings have been initiated. In the impugned notice, it has been mentioned that because of the rivalry between two groups, there is a possibility of breach of peace and tranquillity in that area. The petitioners were permitted to appear before the Enquiry Officer and execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
14.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9285 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent in M.C.No.16 of 2021 arraying this petitioners as 'B' party.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/76
2.In the impugned notice, it has been mentioned that the dispute arose over the Tamarind trees, in respect of which, group rivalry arose between two groups and because of the group rivalry, there is a possibility of breach of peace and tranquillity. So, challenging the aforesaid notice, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that it is a private dispute between the two groups. There is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent before initiating the proceedings. Moreover, arraying the rival groups as 'A' party and 'B' party is not valid under law.
15.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11922 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, proceedings were initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., by the 1st respondent in M.C.No. 2319 of 2021, dated 08.07.2021. By the impugned proceedings, these petitioners were arrayed as 'B' party and the private respondents as 'A' party.
2.In the impugned notice, it has been mentioned that there is a group rivalry between 'A' party and 'B' party with regard to the Kootaampulikulam Kanmoi and because of the group rivalry, there is a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/76 likelihood of breach of peace and tranquillity in that area. So, proceedings were initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.
3.Challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that arraying this two groups as 'A' party and 'B' party in the impugned proceeding is not valid under law. Moreover, no subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the 1st respondent before initiating the proceedings. Further, there is a mistake with regard to the description of the parties in the impugned notice. One of the person in the 'A' party has also been named as 'B' party.
16.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11959 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent under Section 110 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the petitioner is having two criminal cases on the file of the 2nd respondent police in Crime Nos.371 and 377 of 2019. In both the cases, apart from the petitioner, some other persons were also involved. But proceedings have been initiated only against this petitioner. In both the cases, there was a private dispute. So, initiation of proceedings is not valid under law and before issuing the impugned notice, no subjective https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/76 satisfaction has been arrived at. Seeking quashment of the impugned notice passed by the 1st respondent in M.C.No.A2/SR-94 of 2021, dated 05.07.2021, this petition is filed.
17.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12151 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, the 1st respondent issued the proceedings in M.C.No.591 of 2021. Under Section 111 of Cr.P.C., the impugned notice was issued and the action was initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was permitted to appear before the Enquiry Officer on the ground that the petitioner is involved in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity.
2.Challenging the aforesaid notice and proceedings, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction with regard to the information furnished by the 2nd respondent as well as substance of the information has not been mentioned in the impugned notice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/76
18.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12162 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, proceedings were initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka.No. 1010/Ni.Se.Na&/Kaa.Tho.Aa/Ma.Maa/2021 dated 16.08.2021 against these petitioners. In the impugned notice, two rival groups have been arrayed as 'A' and 'B' parties.
2.In the impugned notice, it has been stated that because of the dispute over the raising of rent in respect of Vadivasal Restaurant, group rivalry has been occurred between two groups, in respect of which, a case in Crime No.1410 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 452, 506(ii) and 436 of IPC was registered against the 'B' party and a case in Crime No.1411 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 420 of IPC was registered against these petitioners. Because of the group rivalry, there is a likelihood of breach of public peace and tranquillity. So, the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C have been initiated and the impugned notice has been issued.
19.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9489 of 2021:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/76 The case of the petitioner is that during 2018, dispute arose between the petitioner and his village people. Because of that, a case in Crime No.143 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC has been registered against this petitioner. Similarly, another cases in Crime No.147 of 2018 for the offence under Section 4A(1a) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act and Crime No.288 of 2018 have been registered falsely. Now, trial is pending before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri. During the pendency of the aforesaid cases, the impugned proceeding has been initiated. Except the aforesaid case, the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
20.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent herein has sent a report to the 1st respondent, informing him to initiate action under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., based upon which, proceeding has been initiated. In respect of the temple called Sri Vadakasiamman Kovil, dispute arose between the petitioners and some of the village people, regarding putting up an iron gate at the entrance of the temple. Because of that, impugned proceeding has been initiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/76
21.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10027 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he was included in a false case in Crime No.98 of 2019, which involves a murder, by the 2nd respondent. Except the aforesaid case, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. However, action has been initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. by the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner may involve in activities, which may be prejudicial to the public law, order and peace.
22.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10166 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is not involved in any bad antecedent activities. Without following proper procedure, proceeding in M.C.No.461 of 2021 dated 18.03.2021 has been initiated against this petitioner under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., based on the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein stating that the petitioner may indulge in activities, which may be prejudicial to the public peace, based upon which, this impugned notice has been issued and proceeding has been initiated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 19/76
23.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10342 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is not involved in any offence on 05.02.2020. The 1st respondent ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as security and that order was complied with by the petitioner on 05.02.2020 in M.C.No.25 of 2019. From 05.02.2020, till date the petitioner is not involved in any other crime and no case has been registered against him. In Crime No.152 of 2017, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC, the petitioner was tried and later acquitted by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai on 22.11.2019. Thereafter, there was no other case.
24.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10466 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that they are arrayed as 'A' party in the impugned proceeding. Before initiating the proceedings, no procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Act has been complied with. The 2nd respondent has laid the LIR before the 1st respondent on the following facts and circumstances.
2.The petitioners herein, who are arrayed as 'A' party in the impugned proceeding, have made a complaint against the 'B' party before https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 20/76 the 2nd respondent. During the course of enquiry in CSR.No.101 of 2020, both the parties claimed title over the property. Both parties belong to separate community. So, a FIR in Crime No.1238 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 145 of Cr.P.C has been registered. The 'B' party has also filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanoor under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C for registration of the case, based upon which, a case in Crime No.28 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 341, 452, 120A, 323, 354, 294(b), 427 and 506(i) of IPC was registered.
3.During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the 'B' party has put up a board, which belongs to a political party in that place. Because of the aforesaid incident, it appears that breach of peace was apprehended, since both the parties are making complaints against each other.
25.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10566 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that there is a civil dispute between him and the B party mentioned in the impugned notice. Due to the pressure made by the B party, proceedings have been initiated. Moreover, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 21/76 the Revenue Divisional Proceeding is also pending. Moreover, arraying the petitioner and the rival group as A and B party is also illegal.
26.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10706 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is a M.A., B.Ed., graduate is also a member of Manithaneyam Auto Stand near Paramakudi Bus Stand. Except being a member of the auto stand association, he had no bad antecedent and noway involved in any criminal activity. However, proceeding has been initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against him.
27.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10753 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is not involved in any activities, which are prejudicial to the public law and order and he is not also involved any previous case. So, initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.474 of 2021 is without any basis.
28.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10771 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that based upon the recommendation made by the concerned jurisdictional police, action has been initiated against this petitioners in M.C.No.2319 of 2021 and summon has been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/76 issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
2.The petitioners are noway involved in any activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and law and order. So, before initiating the proceedings, subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent herein with regard to the information furnished by the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai, has not been mentioned in the impugned notice.
29.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10906 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that they are only agriculturist. They are noway involved in any crime and the impugned notice is bereft of particulars. It has been issued without following proper procedure and guidelines and guidelines.
30.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11400 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, the impugned proceedings have been initiated by the 1st respondent herein and notice has been issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.100 of 2021. The petitioner is not involved in any previous bad antecedent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/76
2.In the previous year, a similar proceeding has been issued by the 1st respondent and it came to be challenged in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9689 of 2020 and this Court, by order dated 14.09.2020, has quashed the impugned proceedings on the ground that before issuing the impugned notice, proper procedure has not been complied with. The judgment of this Court in the case of M.Krishnamurthy Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer reported in 2017 1 Mad WN (Cri) 199 was not followed. Similarly, in this year also, same proceedings have been initiated without following the aforesaid procedure.
31.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11455 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that one Santhana Meera is the father of the 1st petitioner. The said Santhana Meera has two wives. The 1st petitioner herein is the son of the 2nd wife. Through a Inam Settlement deed, property was allotted to the 1st petitioner and his two sisters. Similarly, the children of the 1st wife was settled with the properties. Regarding the property dispute, a suit was filed and the 1st appeal was also filed. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, at the intervention of Jamath Elders, settlement was arrived between the parties in 2007. Because of the settlement, revenue records have also been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/76 mutated.
2.Subsequent to the aforesaid settlement, 11 ares, which is situated in S.No.163/53, was in possession of the 1st petitioner and his two sisters.
They decided to sell the property, over which, dispute arose. The complainant assaulted the 1st petitioner and others. Because of the assault, criminal case was registered.
3.The 5th petitioner herein went to the Sub Registrar’s Office to assist the other petitioners. Except that, he had no connection with the dispute. Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.88 of 2021 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. After that only, a case in Crime No.89 of 2021 has been registered against this petitioners. Later, a case in Crime No.138 of 2021 has also been registered against the ‘B’ party. Only the private respondents herein are continuously engaged in such criminal activities. So, initiation of proceedings against this petitioners is not valid under law.
32.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11522 of 2021:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 25/76 The case of the petitioners is that they belong to a political party.
They also supported their party during the local body election. All the petitioners are residing in Thoppadaipatty Village, Kamuthi Taluk. Because of the support made by this petitioners, particular political party succeeded. So, because of the political rivalry on 10.07.2021, the other party created trouble and damaged the house of one Packiyam, for which, a case in Crime No.95 of 2021 has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 427, 120 (b) and 380 of IPC.
2.The proceeding in M.C.No.573 of 2021 has been initiated against the opposite party. That was challenged in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11522 of 2021 and the same is pending. The petitioners are noway connected in the aforesaid proceeding. However, on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, the impugned proceeding has been initiated.
33.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11528 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is a President of Sangam called Deiventhira Kula Velalar Sangam, Muthukulathur. Except being the President of the aforesaid Sangam, he is not involved in any criminal activities. The impugned proceeding has been initiated against him https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26/76 without proper application of mind.
34.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11742 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that the property situated in S.No. 122/1B belongs to them, through a registered settlement deed dated 22.06.2009. The private respondents herein, namely, the respondents 4 to 6 were aware of the aforesaid settlement deed. But the first time in May 2020, they made a false claim, based upon which, a recommendation has been made by the 3rd respondent herein in LIR.No.22 of 2021. The impugned recommendation is dated 29.07.2021. Both the parties have been arrayed as A and B party in the impugned notice, wherein, it has been mentioned that because of the land dispute between the two parties, they are engaged in group rivalry for more than 2 years. So, based upon this recommendation, it appears that the proceedings have been initiated by the 1st respondent herein as per Section 107 Cr.P.C.
35.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12372 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to ADMK political party and Devendrakula Velalar community. He is also an agriculturist and is working in the political party. Except being a member of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/76 political party, he had got no bad antecedent and noway involved in any criminal activity. However, proceeding has been initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.
36.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12428 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner herein is that he is working as Dharmakartha of Sri Santhanamariyambal Temple, which belongs to 750 legal heirs, from 2017. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic situation, daily poojas and festival could not be conducted for the year 2020 and 2021. When that is being the position, 18 legal heirs out of the aforesaid 750 legal heirs tried to stop the construction activities and also appears to have given a false complaint, based upon which, proceedings have been initiated by arraying the petitioner and others as 'A' and 'B' party. In respect of the temple, a suit in O.S.No.87 of 2021 is pending before the learned Principal District Munsif, Thoothukudi.
2.On 16.07.2021, at about 07.30 pm., rival group entered into the temple and caused disturbance. So, a representation was sent on 17.07.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi and the 2nd respondent, but there was no action. So, this petitioner filed a petition https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 28/76 before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10258 of 2021 seeking order of not to harass this petitioner. Taking vengeance of the same, a recommendation has been made to initiate proceedings.
37.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12650 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is a Office Bearer of a political party. He and his brother participated in a public auction for collection of rent from the Vedasandur daily market vendors. Because of that, some enmity arose. Based upon the false case, the case has been registered against this petitioner by the 2nd respondent, in pursuance of which, proceedings have been initiated.
38.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12776 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that they belong to a political party. They also supported their party during the local body election. Except the 1st petitioner, others are residing in Thoppadaipatty Village, Kamuthi Taluk. Because of the support made by this petitioners, particular political party succeeded. So, because of the political rivalry on 10.07.2021, the other party created trouble and damaged the house of one https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/76 Packiyam, for which, a case in Crime No.95 of 2021 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 427, 120 (b) and 380 of IPC.
2.The proceeding in M.C.No.573 of 2021 has been initiated against the opposite party. That was challenged in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 11522 of 2021 and the same is pending. The petitioners are noway connected in the aforesaid proceeding. However, on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, the impugned proceeding has been initiated.
39.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13017 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent, proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C were initiated against this petitioner in M.C.No.577 of 2021 dated 02.07.2021 by the 1st respondent. The petitioner was permitted to appear before the Enquiry Officer on the ground that he is involved in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquillity. The impugned notice was issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, this petition is filed mainly on the ground https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 30/76 that there is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent before issuing the impugned notice and substance of the information has not been mentioned in the impugned notice.
40.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13027 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that due to the assault made by one Murugesan upon the petitioner and his son, a case in Crime No.360 of 2020 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 of IPC by the 2nd respondent herein. Since the accused persons, namely, A1 to A6 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court, due to previous enmity, whenever the petitioner crosses his house, which is situated next to the house of A1, the accused persons are threatening the petitioner stating that if the case registered against them is not withdrawn, they will murder the petitioner and his family, for which, the petitioner gave a complaint before the 2nd respondent, which is pending so far, without any progress and filed Crl.M.P.(MD) No.4752 of 2022 seeking to cancel the bail order granted in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.561 of 2020 to the accused persons. Notice was ordered to the accused persons in the aforesaid petition. At this stage, based upon the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, without any proper reason and basis, the 1st respondent has initiated the impugned proceedings against this https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 31/76 petitioner in M.C.No.96 of 2021 dated 28.07.2021, wherein, the petitioner was directed to appear on 04.08.2021 at about 03.00 pm., for enquiry. He has also complied with the direction as mentioned in the impugned notice, dated 04.08.2021. Challenging the same, this petition is filed.
41.Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.13068 and 13093 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioners is that they have been implicated in the cases in Crime Nos.192, 10 and 985 of 2010 on the file of the 2 nd respondent herein, for which, the 1st respondent initiated the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against them. After that, they executed a bond each before the 1st respondent on 10.03.2021 with an undertaking for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for maintaining the public peace and tranquility. While so, stating that they are involved in Crime No.219 of 2021, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of IPC @ 147, 148, 323, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC and have violated the bond given by them on 10.03.2021, recommendations have been sent by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent herein to initiate proceedings upon them under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., based upon which, impugned proceedings have been initiated against this petitioners in M.C.No.975 of 2021 on 27.08.2021 by the 1st respondent. Hence, this petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 32/76 (2).Challenging the proceedings and issuance of notice, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that arraying the two rival groups as 'A' and 'B' parties is not valid under law. Moreover, there is no subjective satisfaction with regard to the information furnished by the 2nd respondent. It is a private dispute between the landlord and tenant.
42.Heard the learned respective counsels for all the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) for the respondents/State.
43.Since in all these cases a common question of law arose, the matter was heard in common. So, a common judgment is pronounced.
44.In all these matters, the proceedings under Sections 107 and 110 of Cr.P.C. are involved and the same has been challenged. For a better understanding, we will take up the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to guide us in deciding the matter. Way back in 1980, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Gopalanachari Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1981 SC 674) has observed the ill-effect of Section 110 Cr.P.C. Paragraph No.5 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33/76 “A closer look at Section 110 of the Code in the setting of peril to personal liberty thus becomes a necessity in this case. Counsel for the State, Shri Francis, amicus curiae Shri Abdul Kader and Senior Advocate Shri Tarkunde, agreed that unless the preventive power under Section 110 were prevented from pervasive misuse by zealous judicial vigilance and interpretative strictness, many a poor man, maybe cast into prison by sticking the label of 'habitual' or by using such frightening expressions as 'desperate', 'dangerous' and 'hazardous to the community'. Law is what the law does, even as freedom is what freedom does. Going by that test, Section 110 cannot be permitted in our free Republic to pick up the homeless and the have-nots as it did when under British subjection because to-day to be poor is not a crime in this country. George Bernard Shaw, though ignorant of 110, did sardonically comment that "the greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is poverty".
45.After analyzing the provisions in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the concluding paragraph has observed as under:-
“Let us allay misunderstandings. We are clear in our mind that prevention is better than cure, in criminal law as in medicines, especially when there is judicial supervision. Society cannot be left at the mercy of predators and bandits who, like wild beasts, prey upon the weak and the innocent and become a menace to peace and security of society. But liberty is a prized value and that is why https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34/76 we have insisted not merely upon the Police having to be careful before marching poor people into court under Section 110 but the Court itself having to be gravely concerned about using preventive provisions against helpless persons, not on formal testimony readily produced to order as we have noticed in a recent case, [Prem Chand Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No.3050 of 1980 decided on 11.11.1980, MANU/SC/0191/1980:1981 CriL J5 (SC)] but on convincing testimony of clear and present danger to society.”
46.So, with this cautious note struck by the Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in 1980, while approaching the matter under dispute, we will go to the second judgment with regard to the consequences of dropping of proceedings or execution of the bond for a particular period.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1972 SC 2225, in paragraph No.6, has observed like this.
“6.............We may at the outset state that we find it difficult to accede to the submission made by Mr. Singh that once the period for which bond was ordered to be executed has expired, the order becomes nugatory and the proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be dropped. The proceedings under section 107 of the Code, in our opinion, can continue despite the fact that the period for which the bond was required to be executed has expired. To hold otherwise would lead to the result that the proceedings https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/76 under the section would have, to be dropped if the person proceeded against succeeds in protecting the proceedings, even though the apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity still persists. At, the same time, the court is not precluded from taking into account,, the subsequent events. If the material on record discloses that though there was a danger of breach of peace it one time, because, of the happening of a subsequent event the danger of breach of peace has disappeared, the court can drop the proceedings and discharge the person proceeded against. Even in the absence of some positive evidence of reconciliation between the opposing parties, if the court finds that since, the date of incident complained of, a very long period has elapsed during the course of which nothing untoward has happened. the court may well draw the inference that the danger of breach of peace has vanished. ”
47. This judgment guides us further to the effect that if there is a long gap between the incident, that can be taken into account. Even if the period, for which, the bond has been executed, expired, the proceedings may not be dropped. So, subsequent events can be taken into account and simply because the bond expired, the proceedings need not be dropped.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/76
48.Now, we will go to the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Farhan Nasir Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2020 (206) AIC 279.
49.The questions that has been referred to before the Hon’ble Full Bench are that i) whether before issuing the show cause notice under Section 111 of Cr.P.C., separate order must be passed by the Magistrate?
ii) Whether the aforesaid order must accompany the show cause notice issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
iii) If the show cause notice, which is in writing and which sets forth (i) the substance of the information received, (ii) amount of the bond, (iii) term for which it is to be in force, (iv) number character and class sureties, if any, is required and (v) grounds for apprehending breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility, whether a separate order must be passed.
50. The Hon'ble Full Bench after going through the entire law came to the conclusion that the Magistrate has to form an opinion in writing as contemplated by Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, proceed to issue the show cause notice as contemplated by Section 107 of Cr.P.C. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/76 and along with the show cause notice, the opinion must be annexed. It can also be done in the notice itself by integrating all the aforesaid facts.
51.Further explaining purpose of the notice, it is observed that the noticee must know the factual matrix comprising either in the complaint or in the information received and the reasons for the opinion of the Magistrate. So, according to the Hon'ble Full Bench decision, the purpose of the notice is to inform the noticee with regard to all relevant facts as stated above for the purpose of giving him a fair and full opportunity to put forth his explanation. So, this judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of Bombay High Court further guides to address the issue.
52.This position has been clarified in the famous case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Madhu Limaye Vs. S.D.M.Monghyr (AIR 1971 SC 2486). In paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed as under:-
“We have seen the provisions of Section 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 38/76 and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to emphasise 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 the ,general public.
In this very case the Apex Court went on to observe 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 tranquillity 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 bodily 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.”
53.Way back in 1909, the very same Bombay High Court in a Full Bench decision reported in Suleman Adam Vs. Emperor (MANU/MH/0054/1909) deals about the old provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is a specific provision to the effect that summons issued under Section 114 of Cr.P.C. must be accompanied with a copy of the order made under Section 112 of Cr.P.C. It appears that this mandatory requirement has been brought by way of a judicial order by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the Farhan Nasir Khan’s judgment https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 39/76 (referred supra). Now, the position is very clear to the effect that the notice must accompany the materials that have been mentioned by the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Bombay High Court.
54. With this backdrop in my mind, we will go to the judgment of our High Court.
55.Even though the judgment reported in in the case of M.Krishnamurthy and others Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer and others (MANU/TN/0706/2017) is frequently quoted and followed, after the aforesaid case, a more comprehensive discussion has been made in Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2020 dated 25.09.2020. As I mentioned earlier, this is very comprehensive in nature.
56.The discussion starts from the colonial era cases, wherein, the proceedings were initiated against V.O.Chidambaram Pillai under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Section 107 Cr.P.C. deals with the security for keeping the peace. Section 110 deals about the security for good behavior from habitual offenders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40/76
57.A Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Yeluchuri Venkatachennaya and others Vs. Emperor reported in AIR 1920 Madras 337 would conclude that the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is equal to trial proceedings. That is why legal assistance was also permitted. So that proposition of law is followed till date.
58.In Thekkittil Gopalankutti Nair Vs. Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthaseah (AIR 1971 Ker 280 (FB)), it has been observed that proceedings under Sections 107 to 110, 133, 144, 145 and 488 of Cr.P.C. are the judicial proceedings in nature. It is further observed that the term 'breach of peace' requires subjective satisfaction as basis and insofar as the term 'good behavior' is concerned, it rests upon objectivity. So, except class (g) of Section 110 Cr.P.C., the existence of a previous case is a requirement under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. So, in that case, the power of the Deputy Commissioner of Police was questioned. Whether he was a competent person to initiate the proceedings was under discussion.
59.Now going back to the aforesaid M.Krishnamurthy's judgment. 4 questions were formed and the same has been extracted hereunder:-
"(a) Is a previous incident a sine qua non for initiating Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 41/76
(b) Can proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. be initiated even before an incident that is likely to disturb the peace or public tranquillity takes place?
(c) Should a show cause order issued under Section 107 Cr.P.C. reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action?
(d) Can a show cause order under Section 107 Cr.P.C. be per se subjected to judicial review?"
60.By following Madhu Limaye's judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench has observed as under:-
"47. The gist of the Chapter is the prevention of crimes and disturbances of public tranquillity and breaches of the peace. There is no need to prove overt acts although if overt acts have taken place they will have to be considered. The action being preventive is not based on overt act but on the potential danger to be averted. These provisions are thus essentially conceived in the interest of public order in the sense defined by us. They are also in the interest of the general public. If prevention of crimes, and breaches of peace and disturbance of public tranquillity are directed to the maintenance of the even tempo of community life, there can be no doubt that they are in the interest of public order."
61.Regarding the 1st question, it has been answered that previous incident is not a sine qua the breach of peace. The likelihood of breach of peace is enough to initiate the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 42/76
62.Regarding the 2nd question, it has been answered that the proceedings can be initiated even before the incident that is likely to disturb the peace and tranquility takes place.
63.Regarding the 3rd question, it has been answered that the subjective opinion at the stage of Section 107 of Cr.P.C cannot be a matter for judicial review. So, all these questions were answered to the effect that the truth of the information can be tested only in the Enquiry under Section 116 of Cr.P.C.
64.Regarding the 4th question, it has been answered that the order must contain substance of the information received. The information is necessary for the noticee to challenge the allegations. A 'substance' here means the essence of the information that has been received by the Magistrate from the police or otherwise. Since in the conclusion paragraph, it has been observed that if preventive action proceedings are not interfered at the threshold, there is every likelihood of tempers cooling down during the proceedings before the Executive Magistrate. So the Courts must be very slow in interfering with an order passed under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. The Society is the ultimate sufferer, if the order passed under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. is interfered needlessly on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 43/76 ground of protracting the individual rights. We came to an end of discussion with regard to the requirements of law. With this backdrop in mind, now we are going to the individual case on hand.
65.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.21560 of 2018:-
In the impugned notice dated 30.11.2018, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases, which is of the year 2012. Because of his activity, there is likelihood of breach of public peace. It appears that after 2012, no case has been registered against this petitioner. After a long gap of 6 years, the proceeding appears to have been initiated, which has not been approved, as mentioned earlier. Moreover, it does not disclose the substance of the information and subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent, before initiating the proceedings. The period also lapsed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though the period mentioned in the petition is lapsed, an order of interim stay has been granted by this Court.
(2).In the light of the above interim order, the proceedings automatically lapsed, after the expiry of 1 year period. However, for the aforesaid reason, the impugned notice dated 30.11.2018 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 44/76
66.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9333 of 2020:-
In the impugned notice dated 01.06.2020, it has been stated that the petitioners belong to SC community and they were tried to enter into the temple called Angalaeswari Amman Temple, Tiruvengadam and because of that, objections were raised by other community people and so, there is a likelihood of breach of peace. Even though 1 year lapsed from the date of initiation of the proceedings, it appears that it automatically got lapse, since no interim stay was granted by this Court. Moreover, even factually the 1st respondent has not recorded the subjective satisfaction with regard to the breach of peace and the substance of the information that has been received, it is seen that over the dispute, a peace committee meeting was also convened. Both the community people are entitled to worship the public temple. So, the initiation of the proceedings stating that this will cause breach of peace is without any subjective satisfaction. But whatever it may be, as I mentioned earlier, the period automatically got lapses and there is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent in arriving at the conclusion. So, this petition has now become infructuous and accordingly, it stands dismissed as infructuous. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 45/76
67.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3065 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 05.02.2021, it has been mentioned cryptically that the petitioner is indulged in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace. It is also mentioned that the petitioner also involved in Crime No.2020 of 2020 under Section 302 of IPC. It appears that except this murder case, no other case is pending against this petitioner. Substance of the information, subjective satisfaction, nature of bond and the nature of sureties are not mentioned. The petitioner would state that except the aforesaid murder case, no other case is pending against him. So, due to the lack of aforesaid legal requirements, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
68.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3066 of 2021:-
As I mentioned earlier, the 1st petitioner is stated to be an Advocate, who appeared for one of the rival parties. The 2nd petitioner, according to the 1st petitioner, is his mother. So, arraying them as 'A' party and 'B' party is absolutely illegal. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents/State is not in a position to clarify the stand of the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 46/76 (2).Reading of the impugned notice dated 01.02.2021 shows that there is a pathway dispute between the two groups and because of that, there is likelihood of breach of peace. Moreover, arraying the parties as two groups for initiating the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.
has been stated to be illegal in several judgments. As mentioned by the petitioners, leaving the other rival group, proceedings have been initiated only against this petitioners. As I mentioned earlier, this is not permitted by law. Moreover, subjective satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate with regard to the information furnished by the sponsoring authority has not been disclosed. Hence, this impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the 1st respondent in this case to initiate fresh proceedings against this petitioners by properly following the proper process as stated above.
69.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3710 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 27.02.2021, it has been stated that the 2nd respondent herein has made recommendation to the effect that the petitioner is involved in two criminal cases and indulged in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace. This also does not satisfy any of the requirements as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 47/76 (2).The petitioner would state that the case in Crime No.1174 of 2020 has been quashed, in view of the compromise reached between the parties. He would further state that the other case was closed as mistake of fact. In respect of Crime No.13 of 2019, the petitioner would state that it is a private dispute between him and the defacto complainant over the land dispute. That incident took place in 2019. After two years, it appears that the present proceeding has been initiated. Apart from that, it does not satisfy the requirement of law as stated above. Hence, this impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
70.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4155 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 03.03.2021, it has been stated that the petitioner is involved in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility. Other than, no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent has been mentioned in the impugned order.
(2).The petitioner would state that he is not involved in any case.
But in the counter, it has been stated that the petitioner encroached a Government Poramboke Land, in respect of which, a case has been registered. This absolutely lacks the subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent, while initiating the proceedings with regard to the aforesaid https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 48/76 aspect. How the encroachment upon the Government land will cause breach of peace is not subjectively satisfied by the 1st respondent before initiating the proceedings.
(3).It appears that the case has been registered against this petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 506 (ii) of IPC. He has to face the prosecution as per law. Apart from that, it does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of law. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
71.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4476 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 23.02.2021, it has been mentioned that the petitioner indulged in activities directly and indirectly causing division between the village people. Here also, he has been elected as a representative on 02.01.2020. Subsequent to that only, proceeding has been initiated. As mentioned in the aforesaid case, initiation of the proceedings against the public representative without any substance may affect his public function as a representative of the people. Moreover, no legal requirement is available as stated above. It appears that he made a protest by demanding the police to put up a board in a particular place and climbed up the tower demanding the erection of the board, for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 49/76 which, a case has been registered against this petitioner, but that cannot be termed as a reason or cause to show that this petitioner indulged in activities, which causes breach of peace. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, there is no legal requirement of law as stated above. Hence, the impugned notice dated 23.02.2021 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
72.Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.5016, 5800 and 5972 of 2021:-
In all these matters, the impugned notices have been passed in a printed format, filling the gaps. So, this completely lacks the application of mind on the side of the 1st respondent and moreover, substance of the information and the nature of sureties have not been mentioned. Since the legal requirement is not satisfied in all the matters, the impugned notices are liable to be quashed in these matters and accordingly, the same are quashed.
73.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7451 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 18.02.2021, which is a cryptic order, it has been stated that the petitioner is involved in disturbing the public peace and tranquility. The substance of the information and the subjective satisfaction and other requirements have not been satisfied. It https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 50/76 appears that this is also a printed format, which has been used for issuing the notice by filling up the gaps. No material has been placed before this Court to show that the substance of the information was available to the 1st respondent for initiating the proceedings. So, absolutely there is no substance of the information received. Moreover, due to the nonfulfillment of the aforesaid legal requirements, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
74.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7787 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 15.02.2021, it appears that notice has been issued in a printed format, in which, gaps have been filled up. It does not satisfy any of the legal requirements. So, on the sole ground, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. It is also seen that the petitioner has been elected as a Ward Member on 02.01.2020. There is an information to the effect that the petitioner indulged in creating trouble between the people on the basis of the caste and community, but absolute there is no substance to initiate proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. This may cause unnecessary doubt. So, in the aforesaid circumstances, initiation of the proceeding is without any substance and basis. So, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 51/76
75.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8957 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice, it has been stated that both parties indulged in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and tranquility. It appears that there is a dispute between the two rival groups over the performance as well as the construction of the temple. So, as mentioned earlier, arraying the parties as 'A' and 'B' in a single proceeding is illegal. Substance of the information has not been furnished in the impugned notice. So, due to the lack of aforesaid legal requirements, this impugned notice is liable to quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed. However, liberty is granted to the 1st respondent to initiate the proceedings by satisfying the requirements of law, if still the breach of peace is apprehended.
76.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9285 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 07.06.2021, it has been stated that the dispute arose between the two groups over the collection of Tamarind fruits in a land. Because of that, there is a likelihood of breach of peace in that area. However, the 1st respondent has not mentioned the subjective satisfaction with regard to the aforesaid aspect. It appears that it is a private dispute between the two parties over the collection of Tamarind fruits. How it is going to affect the public peace is not mentioned. So, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 52/76 subjective satisfaction, which recorded in the impugned notice, of the 1st respondent is not supported. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to initiate proceedings as per law, if still the situation is existence, which causes breach of public peace. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, arraying the parties as 'A' and 'B' and initiating the proceedings are not proper and it is illegal. For all these reasons, the impugned notice is quashed.
77.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11922 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 08.07.2021, it has been stated that the 2nd respondent herein has recommended initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C and the parties were arrayed as 'A' and 'B' party, wherein, it has been categorically mentioned that in respect of the dispute Kootaampulikulam Kanmoi, they were indulging in group rivalry, which causes breach of peace. As mentioned in the aforesaid matter, arraying both the parties as 'A' and 'B' and issuing the show cause notice, is found to be illegal in the judgment reported in Muthusamy and others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Mallusamudram Police Station, Mallasamudram, Namakkal District. (1999 (1) MWN (Cr.) 177).
(2).Since this is a settled principle of law, we need not go in detail the previous case, which has been decided on this alone. So, on the sole https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 53/76 ground, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed. However, the 1st respondent is at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, if still there is likelihood of breach of peace existing.
Moreover, the impugned order does not incorporate the substance of the information as well as the subjective satisfaction.
78.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11959 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 05.07.2021, it has been stated that the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent and he undertook to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,000/- for keeping the peace for 1 year. On that ground, he was released on bail. This is challenged in this petition.
(2).It appears that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.371 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 342 and 506 (2) of IPC, which was registered on 31.07.2019, wherein, this petitioner was arrayed as 1st accused. It appears that there is a private quarrel between the defacto complainant and the accused persons.
Similarly, he is also involved in Crime No.377 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 506(2) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 54/76 Women Act, 2002, wherein, he has been arrayed as 1st accused. It appears that it is a sequel to the aforesaid Crime No.371 of 2019, upon which, the proceedings have been initiated and he executed the bond also.
(3).After execution of the bond, this petition is filed mainly on the ground that the other co-accused persons were not directed to execute a bond, but only the petitioner was directed. Even though the bond has been executed by the petitioner, it appears that the procedure has not been properly followed by the 1st respondent before directing the petitioner to execute the bond.
(4).In the judgment reported in 2016 2.L.W. (Crl.) 470, it has been observed that the guidelines prescribed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed. The cryptic order has been passed. So, in the absence of any such legal order, this petition is liable to be allowed. For the failure to follow the provisions under Section 107 of Cr.P.C, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 55/76
79.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12151 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 22.07.2021, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is indulged in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace. It appears that this is also a printed format, which has been used for the purpose of initiating the proceedings and the gaps have been filled up. So, this completely lacks the application of mind with regard to the subjective satisfaction before initiating the proceedings and the substance of the information has not been furnished. Hence, this impugned notice is also liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
80.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12162 of 2021:-
In the impugned notice dated 16.08.2021, it has been stated that 'A' party is a tenant of site called Vadivasal Restaurant. The dispute arose between the owner and the tenant. Because of the dispute between the parties, two cases have been registered against the parties. Because of the rivalry, apprehension of breach of peace is noticed and as mentioned earlier, arraying the parties as 'A' party and 'B' party and initiating the proceedings are not permissible under law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 56/76 (2).Moreover, it is seen that it is a private dispute between the landlord and tenant. The apprehension on the part of the 1st respondent to the effect that there is every likelihood of breach of peace is not supported by any subjective satisfaction and the substance of the information has not been mentioned in the impugned notice. Apart from that nature of sureties has not been mentioned. When a case and a case in counter case has been registered against both parties, they can proceed under the common and ordinary law. So, without any subjective satisfaction with regard to the aforesaid breach of peace, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
However, liberty is granted only in this case to the 1st respondent to initiate proceedings by complying with all the legal requirements, if necessary.
81.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9489 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 20.03.2021. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner may involve in activities, which may cause prejudice to the public peace and law and order problem and so, proceeding has been initiated. Except stating the duration of the bond, for which, bond to be executed, no other substance has been mentioned. This also suffers from the defects that has been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 57/76 pointed out earlier. Hence, the impugned notice dated 20.03.2021 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
82.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9627 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 09.07.2021, wherein, it has been Stated that group rivalry exists between two community people regarding putting up an iron gate in front of the temple called Sri Vadakasiamman Kovil. So, action has been initiated on the basis of the recommendation made by the concerned police and notice has been issued. It appears that a case in Crime No.186 of 2021 has been registered against this petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506 (ii) of IPC, based upon the complaint given by one Rajaguru, wherein, it has been stated that because of the dispute over the temple, there is a group rivalry between these two community people. So, they were inimical with each other, because of which, the complainant has been assaulted by this petitioners and others.
(2).Now, a recommendation has been made by the 2nd respondent in LIR.No. 42 of 2021, seeking execution of the proceedings against this petitioners under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. But the substance of the information, subjective satisfaction with regard to the information https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 58/76 furnished, nature of duration and character of the bond to be executed have not been mentioned in the impugned notice. So, this impugned notice does not satisfy any of the requirements that has been stated above. Hence, this impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.
(3).The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents would submit that because of the group rivalry, a case and a case in counter case have been registered against both parties.
There is continuous trouble in that area, because of which, police protection has also been arranged. Further, it appears that there is a group rivalry between the two community people over the temple issue. So, liberty is granted to the 1st respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, if any breach of peace is still apprehended.
83.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10027 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 12.07.2021, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.98 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Similarly, a case in Crime No.117 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC was registered. But later, the case has been https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 59/76 compromised between the parties. So because of the continuous activity, the petitioner has indulged in breaking the peace in the society.
(2)Reading of impugned notice shows that because of the involvement of the petitioner in two criminal cases, action has been initiated. But, the subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent regarding the information furnished by the 2nd respondent as well as the substance of the information furnished has also not been included in the impugned notice. So, this notice also suffers from the defects and non compliance of the aforesaid requirements. Hence, this impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it stands quashed.
84.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10166 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 18.03.2021, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner may indulge in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace. This is also a printed format, in which, gaps have been filled up by pen. This shows the total non application of mind on the side of the 1st respondent herein as well as the substance of the information that has been furnished has not been mentioned. Similarly, the number, character and class of sureties are not mentioned in the impugned notice. So, proceedings initiated against this petitioner are https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 60/76 liable to be quashed and accordingly, the impugned notice dated 18.03.2021 is hereby quashed.
85.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10342 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 13.07.2021, wherein, it is seen that the petitioner is indulged in activities, which may be prejudicial to the public peace and public law and order. Except stating this, none of the requirements of the procedure that has been stated above has been complied with. Moreover, amount of bond, duration of bond as well as nature of sureties have not been mentioned. The substance of the information furnished as well as the subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent have not been mentioned as stated above.
(2).It is also seen that on the previous occasion, namely, on 05.02.2020, the petitioner was directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and that was also executed by him. After one year period is over, it appears that proceeding has been initiated. The petitioner stated to be involved in Crime No.208 of 2019 for the offence under Section 5
(a) of Explosive Substance Amendment Act, 1908 on the file of the 2 nd respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 61/76 (3).It also appears that he is also involved in Crime No.12 of 2019 for the offence under Section 5 (a) of Explosive Substance Amendment Act, 1908 on the file of the Devipattinam Police Station. Because of the continuous filing of the aforesaid cases, action appears to have been initiated. After that, no case has been registered against this petitioner. Because of the registration of the cases, he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
(4).As I mentioned earlier, subsequent to that the present proceeding has been initiated. Because of the non satisfaction of the aforesaid complaints, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. However, from the statement of the case that has been furnished by the police, it is seen that the petitioner is continuously engaged in criminal activities, over which, cases have been registered against him. Therefore, liberty is granted to the 1st respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, by following proper procedure as stated above, if apprehension of breach of peace is still existing
86.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10466 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 07.07.2021, wherein, the 1st respondent herein has arrayed the parties as 'A' and 'B' party and issued notice under Section 107 of Cr.P.C stating that because of the trouble https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 62/76 between these two groups, there is likelihood of breach of peace. So, the proceedings are initiated. In the impugned proceedings, the parties are arrayed as 'A' and 'B' party, which in the light of the aforesaid judgment is not proper and illegal also. On the sole ground, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it stands quashed. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that there is a group rivalry between the two groups over the land dispute. Both parties claimed right over the property. So, the parties must resolve their dispute through civil process, but, instead of doing that, both of them are engaged in giving complaints against each other.
(2)In the light of the aforesaid factual position and the impugned notice has been quashed on technical ground, fresh proceedings may be initiated by the 1st respondent by complying with proper procedure, if any breach of peace is still apprehended.
87.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10566 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 12.07.2021. Perusal of the same shows that it is a printed format, wherein, particulars have been filled up through pen. This shows that totally non application of mind on the side https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 63/76 of the 1st respondent. The mandatory requirements, substance of the information as well as the subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent, before initiating the proceeding, have not been mentioned in the impugned notice. On the sole ground, it is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
88.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10706 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 14.07.2021. Perusal of the same, it is seen that the same is a printed format and the gaps were filled up through pen. This shows the total lack of application of mind on the part of the 1 st respondent herein. It does not satisfy any of the requirements as stated above. Since printed format has been used, on the sole ground itself, the same is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.
89.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10753 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 25.03.2021. It is a printed format, in which, the party name, place, time and other things have been filled up by using pen. Using of the printed format for sending the notice is totally lack an application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent. Hence, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 64/76 impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
90.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10771 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 08.07.2021, wherein, it has been stated that the 'A' and 'B' parties are indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and law and order because they involved in quarrel over the dispute in Kootaampuli Kanmoi. So, show cause notice has been issued stating that they must execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Except stating this, none of the requirements as stated above has been satisfied. Moreover, the rival groups have been arrayed as 'A' and 'B' party in a single proceeding, which is not valid under law as stated above. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
91.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10906 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 14.07.2021. Perusal of impugned notice shows that it is a printed format and the gaps were filled up through pen. This shows the total lack of application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent herein. It does not satisfy any of the requirements as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 65/76 stated above. Since printed format has been used, on the sole ground, it is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.
92.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11400 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 22.07.2021, wherein, it has been stated that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein, the proceedings have been initiated and in the recommendation, it has been stated that the petitioner is indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace. So, as stated above, it is seen that this impugned notice does not satisfy any of the requirements that has been set out above.
(2)In spite of the earlier order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9689 of 2020, still the authorities are adopting the very same ambiguous procedure. It is not in the interest of the public.
(3)With the aforesaid observation, the impugned notice dated 22.07.2021 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is hereby quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 66/76
93.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11455 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 20.07.2021. Again it was a printed format, wherein, name of the parties, time, date and other things were filled up by using pen. Using of the printed format and arraying the rival groups as ‘A’ and ‘B’ party in the same proceeding is not appreciated as stated above. So, this also suffers from the defects that has been stated earlier. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
94.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11522 of 2021:-
The case in Crime No.95 of 2021 has been registered against one Kalimuthu and others for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 427, 120 (b) and 380 of IPC on 10.07.2021. This petitioners would say that they are noway involved in the aforesaid criminal case. It appears that the aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Packiyam. According to the petitioners, they supported the aforesaid Packiyam and because of that, the impugned proceedings have been initiated against them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 67/76 (2)The impugned notice is dated 12.07.2021, wherein, it has been stated that these petitioners are engaged in activities, which are prejudicial to the public law and order. So, the proceeding has been initiated and notice has been issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. Except stating this, no other facts with regard to the subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent as well as the substance of the information that has been furnished by the 2nd respondent have been mentioned in the impugned notice. So, this also suffers from the defects and infirmities and non compliance of the proper procedure as stated above. Hence, this impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
95.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11528 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 22.07.2021. Perusal of the impugned notice shows that it is also a printed format, in which, name of the respondents, date and time have been filled up through pen. The substance of the information as stated above has not been mentioned in the impugned notice. Moreover, subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent before initiating the proceedings has also not been mentioned in the notice. So, this also suffers from the defects and non https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 68/76 following the procedure that has been set out above. Using the printed format shows totally non application of mind on the side of the 1 st respondent. Hence, this impugned notice dated 22.07.2021 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
96.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11742 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 29.07.2021, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioners indulged in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace. It appears that this is also a printed format, which has been used for the purpose of initiating the proceedings and the gaps have been filled up. Using of the printed format and arraying the rival groups as ‘A’ and ‘B’ party in the same proceeding is not appreciated as stated above. So, this also suffers from the defects that has been stated earlier. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed.
97.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12372 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 04.08.2021, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioner indulged in activities, which are prejudicial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 69/76 to the public peace and public law and order. A recommendation has been made by the 2nd respondent herein to initiate action against this petitioner under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., based upon which, this impugned notice has been issued by initiating the proceedings. This also does not satisfy any of the requirements that has been set out above. Moreover, there is no subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent in the impugned notice. On the sole ground, it is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
98.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12428 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 28.07.2021, wherein, the rival groups have been arrayed as 'A' and 'B' party. It has been stated that because of the dispute over the temple administration, trouble arose. So, because of the group rivalry between the 'A' and 'B' party over the administration of the temple called Sri Santhanamariyambal Temple, suit is also pending before the concerned Court. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, this proceeding has been initiated. However, it appears that arraying two rival groups in a single proceeding as 'A' and 'B' is illegal as stated above. On the sole ground, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. However, liberty is granted to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 70/76 the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings by following proper procedure as set out above, if breach of peace is still apprehended.
99.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12650 of 2021:-
The impugned notice is dated 16.08.2021, wherein, it has been stated that this petitioner is involved in Crime No.1150 of 2020 and other cases and he is also involved in criminal activities, which are prejudicial to the public law and order and peace. So, he was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer and execute a bond. No doubt, in the impugned notice, period of bond, nature of sureties and amount have been mentioned, but, it failed to mention the subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent as well as the substance of the information that has been furnished to him by the 2nd respondent. This also suffers from the defects and non compliance of the information as stated above. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 71/76
100.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12776 of 2021:-
The case in Crime No.95 of 2021 has been registered against one Kalimuthu and others for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 427, 120 (b) and 380 of IPC on 10.07.2021. This petitioners would say that they are noway involved in the aforesaid criminal case. It appears that the aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Packiyam. According to the petitioners, they supported the aforesaid Packiyam and because of that, the impugned proceedings have been initiated against them.
(2)The impugned notice is dated 30.07.2021, wherein, it has been stated that these petitioners are engaged in activities, which are prejudicial to the public law and order. So, the proceeding has been initiated and notice has been issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. Except stating this, no other facts with regard to the subjective satisfaction of the 1st respondent as well as the substance of the information that has been furnished by the 2nd respondent are mentioned in the impugned notice.
So, this also suffers from the defects and infirmities and non compliance of the proper procedure as stated above. Hence, this impugned notice is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same is quashed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 72/76
101.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13017 of 2021:-
The impugned notice dated 02.07.2021, wherein, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is involved in disturbing the public peace and tranquility. The substance of the information and the subjective satisfaction and other requirements have not been mentioned in the impugned notice. It appears that this is also a printed format, which has been used for issuing the notice by filling up the gaps by using pen. No material has been placed before this Court to show that the substance of the information was available to the 1st respondent for initiating the proceedings. So, absolutely there is no substance of the information received. Moreover, due to the nonfulfillment of the aforesaid legal requirements, the impugned notice is also liable to be quashed and accordingly, the same stands quashed.
102.Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13027 of 2021:-
2.Reading of the summon shows that no substance of the information has been received has been stated. Similarly the subjective satisfaction of the first respondent was also not stated. So the impugned summon does not satisfy any requirement as stated above. So the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 73/76 impugned summon is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside.
However, liberty is given to the first respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, by following proper procedure as stated above, if apprehension of breach of peace is still existing
103.Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.13068 and 13093 of 2021:-
Perusal of records shows that the impugned notice has been sent to the petitioner directing him to appear before the first respondent to offer his explanation, as to why bond that was executed by him, dated 10/03/2021 is violated. It is further reads that this petitioner appeared before the first respondent and given an undertaking that since the matter is pending before this court, he will appear as and when the matter is disposed of, since there is no strong order passed by this court. He was directed to appear before the 1st respondent and offer his explanation. Perusal of the records shows that at the time of admitting the petition, no stay order was passed. In spite of the earlier order, no further details are available. So the petitioner can appear before the first respondent and offer his explanation and if any adverse order is passed, he can approach this court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 74/76 In the result, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.9333 of 2021 is hereby dismissed as infructuous. Except that, all the petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No 15.09.2021
Internet : Yes/No
mm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To
1.The Administrative Executive Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Town Police Station, Tirunelveli.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 75/76 G.ILANGOVAN. J.
mm Pre-delivery common order made in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.21560 of 2018, 9333 of 2020, 3065, 3066, 3710, 4155, 4476, 5016, 5800, 5972, 7451, 7787, 8957, 9285, 11922, 11959, 12151 and 12162 of 2021 15.09.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 76/76