IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 308 of 2011() ----------------------------------- MC.13/2011 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY ---------------------------------------------- NINAN JACOB, S/O.K.T.CHACKO, KULATHUNKAL HOUSE, AREEPPARAMBU P.O., MANARCADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANARCADU POLICE STATION. 2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.308 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioner challenges Annexure-I, order dated January 18, 2011 in M.C.No.13 of 2011 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kottayam issued under Sec.111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) directing petitioner to appear before Sub Divisional Magistrate on February 1, 2011 at about 11 a.m and show cause why he shall not be directed to execute a bond in the manner stated therein. Petitioner challenges the said order on the ground that it is not in conformity with Sec.111 of the Code. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is pointed out by learned counsel that when an order is issued under Sec.111 of the Code the Sub Divisional Magistrate had to set forth substance of information received along with other matters specified under Sec.111 of the Code. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Girish P Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (2009(4) KHC 929) and Henry Vijayakumar Vs. State of Kerala (2009(4) KLT 495). It is seen from Annexure-1, order that though it is stated that as per Crl.M.C.No.308 of 2011 -: 2 :- the report submitted by the Sub Inspector, petitioner is (allegedly) engaged in activities which involve breach of peace in the locality, neither the substance of allegations is mentioned in the order, nor a copy of the report appended to Annexure-I, order. There is only a reference to Crime No.263 of 2009 for offences punishable under Secs.326, 324, 308 r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code. Annexure-I does not conform to the requirements of Sec.111 of the Code as explained by this court in the decisions referred supra and hence cannot stand. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Annexure-I, order dated January 18, 2011 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kottayam is set aside, but I make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Sub Divisional Magistrate issuing fresh order under Sec.111 of the Code in compliance with the said provision and decisions referred supra. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-