Madras High Court
G.G. Ravi vs The State on 5 April, 2013
Author: S.Palanivelu
Bench: S.Palanivelu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05-04-2013
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU
CRL.RC.Nos.339 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
G.G. Ravi .. Petitioner/Accused
Versus
1.The State
Rep.by Inspector of Police,
Vellore North Police Station
Vellore District.
(Cr.No.195 of 2013) .. 1st Respondent/complainant
2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vellore. .. 2nd Respondent
Revision filed u/s.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., against the impugned summons in B1/1407 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore-9 dated 28.2.2013 served on the house of the petitioner on 7.3.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Sankarasubbu
For Respondents : Mr.I. Emalias
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The revision petitioner was issued a summons under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The said proceeding is being challenged before this Court. It is his contention that the summons is motivated due to politicfal consideration and the petitioner is highly placed decent mode of living and prominent citizen of Vellore and Chairman of G.G.R.College of Engineering and the petitioner earned name among the general public and particularly students community at large.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Sankarasubbu would contend that inasmuch as the summons challenged before this Court was a bereft of statutory requirements under law, that the respondent has not adhered to the procedure to be followed as contemplated in the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the proceedings has been against law.
3. Repelling this contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the 1st respondent police received secret information that due to the business enmity with Iyyappan and Raghu, the petitioner and his brother G.G.Ramesh are trying to eliminate each other and thereby cause criminal breach of peace and affect public tranquillity, that the petitioner has involved in four criminal cases and that he is a history sheeted rowdy and H.S.No.29/BN.1/1991 is being maintained against him till date in Vellore North Police Station since 1991 and the same is periodically renewed. It is his further submission that issuing summons u/s 107 Cr.P.C.is an interlocutory order, that a revision can be filed only against the final order and hence this revision is not maintainable.
4. Section 107 Cr.P.C. deals with Security for keeping the peace in other cases. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond. However, summons alone issued under Section 107 Cr.P.C. would not satisfy Section 111 Cr.P.C. Section 111 Cr.P.C.goes thus:
"111. Order to be made.
When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required."
5. As per Section111 Cr.P.C., it is necessary to require any person to show cause by making an order in writing, narrating the substance of the information received, amount of bond to be executed, term of bond, number and class of sureties to be furnished. But in this case, there is no notice by the respondent in writing explaining the information received. But the second respondent has sent only the summons to the petitioner which does not contain the above said particulars and it also does not certify the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C., which is illegal.
6. Yet another circumstance putforth by the respondent is that the revision is not maintainable in an interlocutory order, since the petitioner challenged the proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C.is an interlocutory order. In this context, a Full Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court has to be followed. In 2004 SCC (Crl.) 1722 [State rep.by Inspector of Police and others v. N.M.T.Joy Immaculate] after referring various judgments Their Lordships have held that if the objections raised by the accused were upheld the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated, the order was not interlocutory order and consequently it was revisable. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:
"12. Same question has recently been considered in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2000) 6 SCC 195 : 2001 SCC (Cri.) 200. In this case a criminal complaint was filed against the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police alleging commission of several offences under the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 147-G of the Bombay Police Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and issued process to the accused, who on appearance filed a petition for discharge on the ground that no sanction as contemplated by Section 197 CrPC had been obtained. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the petition against which a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, who allowed the same on the objection raised by the accused based upon Section 197 CrPC and also Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, which creates a bar of limitation of one year. The revision preferred by the complainant against the order of discharge was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the accused to discharge them was an interlocutory order. In the appeal preferred by the accused, this Court after referring to Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [(1977) r SCC 137 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 585], Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 10 : AIR 1978 SC 47] and V.C. Shukla v. State [1980 Supp SCC 92 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 695 : AIR 1980 SC 962] held that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not, as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings. If so, any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. It was further held that as in the facts of the case, if the objections raised by the accused were upheld, the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated, the order was not an interlocutory order and consequently it was revisable."
7. In this case also the objections raised by the petitioner are being accepted by this Court and hence the issuance of summons by the 2nd respondent is not an interlocutory proceedings. Therefore, the revision is well maintainable.
8. In fine, the revision is allowed, setting aside the summons in No.B1/1407 of 2013 dated 28.2.2013 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore-9. Connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.04.2013
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
ggs
To
1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Vellore-9.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
S.PALANIVELU, J.
ggs
Order in:
CRL.RC.No.339 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
05.04.2013