Madras High Court
Fr.Michael Raj vs The Executive Magistrate-Ii And on 31 July, 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.07.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
CRL.RC.(MD)No.300 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015
1.Fr.Michael Raj
2.Fr.A.Joseph Lourdu Raja
3.Raja
4.Amalraj
5.Arulanandu
6.Rasu ... Petitioners/
B-party
Vs.
1.The Executive Magistrate-II and
Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thondi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram. ... 2nd Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records pertaining to the
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A3/2830/2014, dated 27.03.2015, on the file of the
first respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioners.
!For Petitioners : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan,
for Dr.Fr.A.Xavier Arulraj
For 1st respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan,
Government Advocate
For 2nd respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
The petitioners are the B party in the final order passed by the first respondent under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.A3/2830/2014, dated 27.03.2015. Challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court with this revision.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. I have also perused the records carefully.
3.According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2015 on 08.02.2015 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and submitted a report to the first respondent alleging that in respect of the right to worship in the Saint Swakkin Annaal Church, Kurumilangudi, there was a dispute between two groups of people in the village. The petitioners belong to one group. It is the further case of the respondents that on the report of the Inspector of Police, the Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned order under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in this case, there was no preliminary order passed, as required under Section 107 of Cr.P.C, incorporating the substance of the information received by the Executive Magistrate, warranting such an action and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however oppose this petition. He would submit that since there would be likelihood of breach of peace, the proceeding has been initiated.
6. I have considered the above submissions.
7. First of all, an Executive Magistrate will get a jurisdiction under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. only by passing a preliminary order, thereby setting forth the substance of the information received by him which impelled him to initiate the proceedings. In Somasundaram and others Vs. RDO, Dharapuram and another, reported in 2002 (1) CTC 72, a learned Single Judge of this Court, after having referred to a number of previous judgments, has quashed the proceedings on this account. In the instant case also, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no preliminary order passed under Section 107 Cr.P.C. at all. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order, dated 27.03.2015, passed by the learned Executive Magistrate No.II cum Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District is set aside.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Executive Magistrate-II and Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Thondi Police Station, Ramanathapuram.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.