IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 386 of 2005() ------------------------ ( MC.96/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PALAKKAD) .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.C.RAMAKRISHNAN, HEADMASTER, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, NALLAMADANCHALLA, VELOYODI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KALATHILPURA, NALLAMADANCHALLA, VELAYODI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUNGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. MANAGER, S.N.U.P.SCHOOL, NALLAMADANCHALLA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.1031/2005 IN CRL.M.C.NO.386/2005 DISMISSED. 26-6-2008. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C. No.386 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 26th June, 2008. ORDER The counter petitioner in M.C. 96/2004 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate's court, Palakkad is the petitioner herein. In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. he seeks an order quashing Annexure A7 proceedings in M.C.96/2004 pending before the above court. 2. Petitioner is the Headmaster of S.N.U.P School, Nallamadanchalla in Palakkad District. According to the petitioner, the Manager who is the 3rd respondent in this Crl.M.C. and the petitioner are not in good terms. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was forced to initiate several proceedings against the Manager, the 3rd respondent, due to his nefarious activities. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent and at the interference of the departmental authorities, he was CRL.M.C.No.386 of 2005 -:2:- ordered to reinstate in service, but the 3rd respondent did not comply with the direction. Finally, the departmental authorities took steps against the 3rd respondent and he had approached this Court against the proceedings of the departmental authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that since the 3rd respondent continued his attack against the petitioner, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing petition for police protection. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the police has registered case against the 3rd respondent at the instance of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was very much infuriated and hence, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, certain criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and on the basis of the above criminal case registered by the police, the Ist respondent by invoking Section 111 of Cr.P.C. issued show cause notice against the petitioner as to why an order under section 107 shall not be issued against the petitioner. Annexure A7(1) is the notice dated 4-12- CRL.M.C.No.386 of 2005 -:3:- 2004 issued under section 113 of Cr.P.C. Annexure A7 (2) is the order passed by the Ist respondent under section 111 of Cr.P.C. by which the petitioner was asked to execute a bond under section 107 of Cr.P.C. for a period of one year so as to prevent him from involving in law and order problem. It is the above order sought to be quashed in this proceedings. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after the issuance of Annexure A7(2) order, no law and order situation has been created at the instance of the petitioner and he had not involved in any crime subsequently. In view of Section 111 of Cr.P.C., it is for the authority to issue orders under sections 107, 108, 109 or 110 to fix the terms of the bond to be in force. As evidenced by Annexure A7(2) order, the period is fixed as one year as per Section 111 of Cr.P.C. That one year CRL.M.C.No.386 of 2005 -:4:- period is already expired by 22nd November, 2005. Now we are in 2008. Nothing brought to my notice by the Public Prosecutor to show whether the period fixed by Annexure A7(2) is extended further or not. In the absence of any order extending the period already fixed as per Annexure A7(2), this Crl.M.C. has become infructuous as the period fixed under section 111 of Cr.P.C. is over by 22nd November, 2005. In the absence of any order extending the period fixed by Annexure A7 (2), virtually this Crl.M.C. has become infructuous as the petitioner has no cause of action. In the result, the above Crl.M.C. is dismissed as infructuous. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.M.C.No.386 of 2005 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: