Kerala High Court
Haris.M.P vs Station House Officer on 21 September, 2023
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 30TH BHADRA, 1945
CRL.MC NO. 8588 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 259/2022 OF SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, TALIPARAMBA
PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:
HARIS.M.P.
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.MOIDEEN, MOOLAKKEEL PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE,
KURUMATHUR.P.O, KURUMATHUR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670142
BY ADVS.
V.A.SATHEESH
V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
ANAND V.S
RESPONDENTS & STATE/ PETITIONER:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, TALIPARAMBA.P.O, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670141
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
BY ADV.SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of September, 2023
ORDER
This Crl.M.C is filed challenging Annexure A1 order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thaliparamba. Annexure A1 is the preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. The proceedings was initiated against the petitioner based on a solitary crime registered against the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that, Annexure A1 notice issued by the learned Magistrate does not contain the substances of the information received by the learned Magistrate for arriving at the satisfaction contemplated under Section 107 Cr.PC. Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022 3 The counsel relied the judgments of this Court in Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another (2009 (4) KHC 929), Santhosh M.V and others v. State of Kerala and others (2014 KHC
522), Bejoy K.V v. State of Kerala and Another (2015 (5) KHC 507) and also Ahammad Kabeer v. State of Kerala and Another (2014 KHC 186).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. A perusal of Annexure A1 notice would not show that it is an order passed in tune with Section 107 r/w Section 111 Cr.P.C. In Girish P's case (supra), the mandate of Section 111 and Section 107 Cr.P.C are mentioned. It will be better to extract the relevant paragraph, which reads as follows:-
"5. S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022 4 enables an executive Magistrate on receiving information that a person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, to require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. S.111 mandates that when a Magistrate acting under S.107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, 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, the necessity to setforth the substance of the information' in the order under S.111 is not an empty formality and is with a purpose. It is to enable the person against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause before the Magistrate that the allegations are not correct. Unless that information is furnished to the person against whom the order is Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022 5 passed, he cannot defend the allegation as against him.
6. Annexure I order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not disclose the substance of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on which he was satisfied that proceedings under S.107 is to be initiated. The fact that petitioners are involved in Crime No. 207/2009 by itself is not a ground, to initiate proceedings, under S. 107. Though past conduct may be a guide to initiate proceedings, on that ground alone proceedings cannot be initiated unless as stated by the Full Bench in Moidu's case (supra) there is an imminent breach of peace warranting initiation of proceedings under S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."
4. In Bejoy K.V's case (supra) also, this Court considered the same point and relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-
"17. Therefore, it is mandatory that an order issued under S.111 CrPC by a Sub Divisional Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under S.107 CrPC, to set forth the substance of information Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022 6 received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and type of securities, if any are required. The order must also reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action under S.107 CrPC for preservation of peace and that thereupon he has passed such an order. An order issued under S.111 CrPC calling upon the person to show cause against execution of bond without disclosing therein the substance of information received and upon which satisfaction was arrived at by him, will not sustain in the eye of law. The order must contain all particulars relevant and sufficient to inform him about the accusation against him. This is because, the party calling upon must have to explain the circumstances against him or defend the proceedings and only on sufficient and satisfactory information being furnished, he will be able to answer the same. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate empowered with the authority to exercise the authority under S.107 CrPC to initiate proceedings must be vigilant and conscious while exercising the power and should bear in mind that the spirit envisaged by the Section is preservation of peace Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022 7 and public tranquillity. The Sub Divisional Magistrate must see that the information supplied to him proposing action, was not one intended with a view to satisfy his personal vendetta. He must bear in mind that with the exercise of the power a man is called upon to execute a bond undertaking to preserve peace and tranquility for a period specified in the proceedings and therefore, it is likely to cast a stigma upon such a person that he was instrumental in breaching the peace or disturbing the public tranquility. If such a stigma is allowed to be fell upon an innocent person without any basis, that stigma cannot be removed later and the person would not be relegated to his real status of innocence, ultimately when such person was found irresponsible for any such alleged acts."
5. Moreover, in Santhosh M.V's case (supra) and in Ahammad Kabeer's case (supra), this Court observed that, if only one case is registered, it is improper to initiate proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph in Santhosh M.V's case (supra) is extracted Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022 8 hereunder:-
"17. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is settled law that merely because the counter petitioner was made an accused in a case alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under S.107 of the Code.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
6. The relevant paragraph in Ahammad Kabeer's case (supra), is extracted hereunder:-
"xxxxxxxxxxxxx Merely because a crime is registered is not a ground to initiate the proceedings under S.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."
7. In the light of the above dictum, I am of the considered opinion that Annexure A1 is not an order in tune with Section 111 Cr.P.C and 107 Cr.P.C. It is only stated that a crime is charged by the Taliparamba Police Station against the counter petitioner. The substances of information received Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022 9 and the details of the case are not narrated in the notice. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Annexure A1 proceedings is unsustainable.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner based on Annexure A1 are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE Crl.M.C.No.8588 of 2022 10 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8588/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE-A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TALIPARAMBA IN M.C.NO.259/2022 DATED 19.07.2022.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE