Madras High Court
Manoj @ Manojkumar vs The Ii Class Executive Magistrate-Cum on 29 September, 2023
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 20/9/2023
Pronounced on 29/9/2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.12844 of 2023
Manoj @ Manojkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The II Class Executive Magistrate-cum-
The Tahsildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police (Law & Order),
G2, Emaneshwaram Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call
for records pertains to M.C.No.64 of 2023, dated 24.07.2023, on the file of the
first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Vishnuram
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023
For R1 & R-2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
------
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Seeking to quash the summons issued by the learned II Class Executive Magistrate-cum-the Tahsildar, Paramakudi, dated 24.07.2023 in M.C.No.64 of 2023, directing the petitioner to appear before him on 18.08.2023.
2. The second respondent/Inspector of Police (Law & Order), G2, Emaneshwaram Police Station, Ramanathapuram District, has submitted a report to the II Class Executive Magistrate-cum-the Tahsildar, Paramakudi / first respondent herein, basing on which, summons have been issued under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not served with the copy of the report including the substance of information which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and that first respondent has mechanically issued the summons to the petitioner, without following due 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023 process of law.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted on the other hand that the impugned notice issued by the first respondent does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. Section 110 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who—
(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment of disposal of stolen property, or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the Commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023 of 1860), or under section 489A, section 489B, section 489C or section 489D of that Code, or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the Commission of,offences, involving a breach of the peace, or
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of—
(i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:—
(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
(b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973);
(c) the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (19 of 1952);
(d) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954);
(e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
(f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
(g) the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or
(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023 hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or
(g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
7. Issuance of summons by respondent No.1 / II Class Executive Magistrate-cum-the Tahsildar is not a mechanical act and the learned II Class Executive Magistrate-cum-the Tahsildar is expected to act judiciously and take a conscious decision to issue summons, if there exists grounds to issue summons. Not, every request made by the Police Officers need be considered and accepted by respondent No.1.
8. In the case on hand, on going through the impugned summons, there is no mention that the learned II Class Executive Magistrate-cum-the Tahsildar has examined the documents submitted by the Inspector of Police (Law & Order) and 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023 came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner under Section 110 of Cr.P.C.
9. On considering the above provision, it is clear that sub-Section (e) applies to the facts of the case. Even if the petitioner is involved in a criminal case, it is not a ground to issue summons under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala, reported in 1980 (Supp) SCC 649. The relevant paragraphs read as under:-
"The constitutional survival of Section 110 certainly depends on its obedience to Article 21, as this Court has expounded. Words of wide import, vague amplitude and far too generalised to be safe in the hands of the Police cannot be constitutionalised in the context of Article 21 unless read down to be as a fair and reasonable legislation with reverence for human rights. A glance at Section 110 shows that only a narrow signification can be attached to the words in clauses (a) to (g), "by habit a robber....", "by habit a receiver of stolen property....", "habitually protects or harbours thieve....", "habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of .... ", "is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community". These expressions, when they become part of the preventive chapter with potential for deprivation of a man's 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023 personal freedom upto a period of three years, must be scrutinised by the court closely and anxiously. The poor are picked up or brought up, habitual witnesses swear away their freedom and courts ritualistically commit them to prison and Article 21 is for them a freedom under total eclipse in practice. Courts are guardians of human rights. The common man looks upon the trial court as the protector. The poor and the illiterate, who have hardly the capability to defend themselves, are nevertheless not 'non-persons', the trial judges must remember, This Court in Hoskot's case has laid down the law that a person in prison shall be given legal aid at the expense of the State by the court assigning counsel. In cases under Section 110 of the Code, the exercise is often an idle ritual deprived of reality although a man's liberty is at stake. We direct the trial magistrates to discharge their duties, when trying cases under Section 110 of the Code, with great responsibility and whenever the counter-petitioner is a prisoner give him the facility of being defended by counsel now that Article 21 has been reinforced by Article 39A. Otherwise the order to bind over will be bad and void. We have not the slightest doubt that expressions like "by habit", "habitual", "desperate", "dangerous", "hazardous" cannot be flung in the face of a man with laxity of semantics. The Court must insist on specificity of facts and be satisfied that one swallow does not make a summer and a consistent course of conduct convincing enough to draw the rigorous inference - that by confirmed habit, which is second nature, the counter- petitioner . is sure to commit the offences mentioned if he is not kept captive. Preventive sections privative of freedom, if incautiously proved by indolent judicial processes, may do deeper injury. They will have the 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023 effect of detention of one who has not been held guilty of a crime and carry with it the judicial imprimatur, to boot. To call a man dangerous is itself dangerous; to call a man desperate is to affix a desperate adjective to stigmatise a person as hazardous to the community is itself a judicial hazard unless compulsive testimony carrying credence is abundantly available. A sociologist may pardonably take the view that it is the poor man, the man without political clout the person without economic stamina, who in practice gets caught in . the coils of Section 110 of the Code, although, we as court, cannot subscribe to any such proposition on mere assertion without copious substantiation. Even so, the court cannot be unmindful of social realities and be careful to require strict proof when personal liberty may possibly be the casuality. After all, the judicial process must not fail functionally as the protector of personal liberty."
10. On perusal of the impugned summons, it is clear that the first respondent has not recorded that he has gone through the material issued by the police and that satisfied the requirements under Section 110 Cr.P.C., in order to issue summons under Section 110 Cr.P.C. The first respondent has to satisfy himself that the petitioner has committed any one of the acts defined under section 110(g) of the Act. But here in the case on hand, except mentioning that the petitioner is said to be involved in disturbing activities in the area, no other 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023 ground is mentioned. Further, there is also no mention as to how many sureties are required to be produced and the amount for which bond has to be executed.
11. Considering the above, the summons issued by the first respondent in M.C.No.64 of 2023, dated 24.07.2023 against the petitioner suffers from material irregularity and hence the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Speaking : Yes / No 29.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
am/mvs.
DR.D.NAGARJUN, J
am/mvs.
To
1.The II Class Executive Magistrate-cum-
The Tahsildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023
2.The Inspector of Police (Law & Order),
G2, Emaneshwaram Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Pre-delivery order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16136 of 2023
29.09.2023
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis