1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:02.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.RC(MD)No.71 of 2011 and MP(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2011 1. Ibrahim 2. Mujibur Rahman 3. Ismail 4. Sahul Hameed 5. Nagoor Kani 6. Seeni @ Uribi Seeni 7. Sulthan 8. Seeni @ Tada Seeni 9. Ayisha Beevi 10.R.Fathima 11.Mehar Banu 12.Jarina Begam 13.Jaina Banu 14.Jannath Beevi 15.Sikkandar Ammal 16.Noorjahan 17.Kansul Rahmath 18.Birakath Nisha 19.Bousia Begam 20.Pitchaiammal 21.Nargis Banu 22.Bathimuthu Johara 23.Asara Banu 24.Sulthan Nama 25.Anushia 26.Kathoon Sariba :Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madurai Division, Madurai District. (in M.C.No.1645 of 2010) 2. The Inspector of Police, B-1, Vilakuthoon Police Station, Madurai City, (In Crime NO.1278 of 2010) :Respondents Prayer:Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records connected with the order in M.C.No.1645 of 2010 dated 18.10.2010, on the file of the respondent No.1 and set aside the same as illegal. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition arises against the order made in in M.C.No.1645 of 2010, dated 18.10.2010, on the file of the respondent No.1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The order under challenge makes reference to the F.I.R., dated 12.10.2010 in Crime No.1278 of 2010 of Vilakkuthoon Police Station and informs that therefrom the authority finds that the petitioner is likely to cause breach of peace affecting public tranquility. Section 111 of Cr.P.C inter alia specifically requires the authority in exercising power under Sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C to setforth in its show-cause notice, the substance of the information received. Apparently, the order is erroneous in that it does not comply with statutory requirements. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that there have been repeated clashes between two groups, this petitioner belongs to one such group and as many as seven cases are pending on the file of the second respondent, relating thereto. He would further submit that the interest of justice would require this Court to quash the order under challenge and allow the authority to move afresh in the matter in accordance with law. 4.The submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) is well founded. Accordingly, the order of the first respondent in M.C.No.1645 of 2010 dated 18.10.2010 is quashed. The revision petition is allowed Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The first respondent is at liberty to move afresh in accordance with law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madurai Division, Madurai District. 2. The Inspector of Police, B-1, Vilakuthoon Police Station, Madurai City, 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate. SR.No.4245. Ssl RP/17.03.2011/2P/5C. Crl.R.C.(MD).No.71 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos. 2 and 3 of 2011 02.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/