IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 895 of 2011() ---------------------------------- MC.NO.286/2010 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SAJIL, S/O.SATHYAN, MATHANKULATHIL HOUSE, POOYAPPILLY KARA, VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR. 2. DHANEESH, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KURUKKANTHARA, POOYAPPILLY KARA, DO. DO. 3. RATHEESH, S/O.KUMARAN, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, POOYAPPILLY KARA, DO. DO. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SMT.GISA SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKARA POLICE STATION. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.895 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 O R D E R The Sub Divisional Magistrate issued Annexure-A3, notice to the petitioners under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) directing them to appear before that authority on September 14, 2010 and show cause why they shall not be required to execute a bond as stated in the said notice. Petitioners seek to quash that notice. Learned counsel submitted that it is without any material that the said notice was issued and that the mere fact that petitioners are involved in one case is not by itself sufficient to issue notice to them under Sec.111 of the Code. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. It is seen from Annexure-A3, notice that it is on getting information about the (alleged) conduct of petitioners and certain others which according to the Sub Divisional Magistrate was likely to endanger public tranquility and on reporting that petitioner and others are still (allegedly) engaged in criminal activities that Annexure-A3, notice was issued. Reference is also made in the said notice about certain crimes for various offences. CRL.M.C. No.895 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Though it is contended that there is no sufficient material to proceed under Sec.111 of the Code I find from Annexure-A3, notice that specific reasons are stated for adopting that course of action. Petitioners were directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on September 14, 2010 and show cause. Learned counsel submits that petitioners appeared, have shown cause and the matter is pending enquiry. If that be so there is no reason why this Court should interfere with Annexure- A3, notice or with the enquiry at this stage. In case the Sub Divisional Magistrate passes any adverse order, petitioners have the remedy of challenging such order. With the above observation this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv