IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 997 of 2008() ------------------------ MC.5/2008 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED -------------------------- JEESON, S/O.GEORGE, THURUTHI PALLIYIL VEEDU, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, R.D.O. OFFICE, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 997 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. O R D E R The petitioner challenges Annexure A preliminary order dated 17.01.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasaragod at Kanhangad initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner would have it that absolutely no circumstance has been recited against the petitioner in the preliminary order and that the FIR relied on in Annexure A is nothing but another proceeding initiated under Section 107 Cr.P.C which in turn also does not refer to the involvement of the petitioner in any other crime. He also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala (1982 KLT 578). 3. As per Annexure A preliminary order, the petitioner is only asked to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to keep for the peace for a period of one year. CRL.M.C. NO. 997/2008 : 2: He can very well appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and show cause why the proposal should not be proceeded with. He shall be at liberty to cite the decision of the Full Bench in the above case. In case there is no material on which initiation of proceedings under Section 107 r/w Section 111 Cr.P.C could be justified, the learned Magistrate shall consider the cause shown by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Reserving this right of the petitioner, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to show cause in absentia by entering appearance though his counsel on 13.03.2008. The Magistrate shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner while the petitioner is showing cause to the preliminary order. If after hearing the counsel for the petitioner the Magistrate is of the view that no cause has been shown, then only he shall call upon the petitioner to appear on a specified date for executing the bond for such period as may be indicated. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.M.C. NO. 997/2008 : 3: