Kerala High Court
Arjun vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 11038 OF 2023
IN MC 290/2023 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN
PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
ARJUN
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. ARUNKUMAR,
PALLATH HOUSE,
NEAR KALARIKKAL TEMPLE,
CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE,
PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683513
BY ADV M.S.BREEZ
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683513
BY ADV.
SREEJA V, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.11038 of 2023
-:2:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.11038 of 2023
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2024
ORDER
Petitioner challenges Annexure-A order issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi.
2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that, the substance of the information for initiating proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. is not specifically mentioned therein. Except for stating that the counter petitioner is endangering the peaceful and tranquil atmosphere of Chittattukara, Vadakkekara, and nearby localities, no specific information or reason why and what conduct of the petitioner is endangering the peaceful and tranquil atmosphere has not been mentioned. The substance of the information mentioned falls woefully short of the requirements under Section 107 or under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
3. The decisions in Girish P vs. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929] and in Ahammed Kabeer vs. Sate of kerala [2014 KHC 186] are relevant in this context. In order to compel a person to explain the reason for showing the cause, it must be specifically mentioned in the order asking to show cause. Vague or inconclusive statements cannot be the Crl.M.C.No.11038 of 2023 -:3:- basis for resorting to the procedure under Section 107 of Cr.P.C or issuing an order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. I am convinced that Annexure-A does not satisfy the requirements of Section 107 or Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, Annexure-A order dated 15.12.2023 shall stand quashed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE Jka/23.02.24.
Crl.M.C.No.11038 of 2023-:4:-
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 11038/2023 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure -A A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2023 IN M.C.NO.290/2023 ISSUED BY THE COURT OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED TO EXECUTE BOND FOR KEEPING PEACE U/S. 111 CR.P.C. R/W. S.107 OF CR.P.C.