IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3757 of 2009() ----------------------------------- MC.96/2009 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MUVATTUPUZHA. .................... PETITIONER(S): A PARTY 1 TO 3 ----------------------------- 1. C.G.GEORGE, KIZHAKUMKARACHAMAKALAYIL HOUSE, MAMALASSERY KARA, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 2. LEELA, W/O.GEORGE, DO. DO. 3. K.V.PAULOSE, KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, DO. DO. BY ADVS.MR.N.SUKUMARAN MR.S.SHYAM RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND B PARTY -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMAMANGALAM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. IBY, W/O.MATHEW, KIZHAKKUMKARA HOUSE, MAMALASSERY KARA, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 3. ELDHO, S/O.MATHEW, DO. DO. 4. GEORGE MATHEW, DO. DO. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM BY ADVS.MR. H.B. SHNOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY MR.ABU MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3757 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that public peace and tranquility is broken by the acts of petitioners and respondents 2 to 4. The grounds stated in the order are that petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 are residents of Mamalassery Kara of Ramamangalam Village and they are continuously indulging in criminal offences, involving breach of public peace and tranquility in and around Mamalassery Kara within the local limits of Ramamangalam Police Station. Sub Inspector of Police, Ramamangalam reported that petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 are continuously involved in wrongful acts leading to breach of peace in connection with a dispute of CRMC 3757/09 2 land in Sy.Nos.523/4A, 524/1, 524/2B and 521-1B/2 of Ramamangalam Village and a case is registered under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also stated that members of petitioner's party are involved in various petitions, including Petition Nos.85/2005, 89/2006, 9/2007, 20/2007, 134/2007, 170/2007, 6/2008, 133/2008, 197/2007, 3/07H2, 3(A)255/PT/07H, 955/07/H2, 737/2008 and 933/PTN-08H and respondents 2 to 4 are involved in various petitions, including Petition Nos.2/2008, 7/2008, 86/2008 and 132/2008. 2. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that there is no justification to initiate proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure or to pass an order under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure directing petitioners to execute a bond as stated in the order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 also submitted that there was no circumstance CRMC 3757/09 3 to invoke the powers under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it was because of the frequent fights between the two groups, the proceedings were initiated. 5. Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion breach of peace or disturb public tranquility and the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may 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. 6. Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when a Magistrate, acting under Section 107, deems it necessary to require any CRMC 3757/09 4 person to show cause under such section, 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. 7. Therefore, when a Sub Divisional Magistrate is passing an order under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure and when a proceedings is initiated under Section 107, it is mandatory that he shall make an order in writing and in the order, he shall set forth the substance of the information received, warranting initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The mandate to set forth the substance of the information received is not an empty formality, but to aid the person, against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause to the order issued, so that he could satisfy the Sub Divisional Magistrate that there is no ground to initiate CRMC 3757/09 5 proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Impugned order passed under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure does not disclose any material, based on which the Magistrate could lawfully initiate proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Apart from the bare allegation that Sub Inspector of Police has reported that petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 are continuously indulging in criminal offences, involving public peace and tranquility, what is recorded as a ground is only that petitioners, in turn, had filed several petitions and respondents 2 to 4 had also filed petitions against the other in respect of the property dispute in Sy.Nos.523/4A, 524/1, 524/2B and 521-1B/2 of Ramamangalam Village. Filing petitions raising allegations against the other party will not amount to either indulging in criminal offences or any act involving public peace and tranquility. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no cause for initiating proceedings CRMC 3757/09 6 under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If so, no order under Section 111 of Code of Procedure can be passed. Petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated as M.C.No.96/2009 under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha against petitioners and respondents 2 to 4, including the order passed under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure, are quashed. 8th January, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv