IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2568 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- [MC.NO.47/2010 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD] .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------- A.GURU DAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VENGAYIL KUNHAMBU NAIR, AREEKKARA, KOTTODI, KALLAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2568 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, against whom Annexure-AI preliminary order was passed under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanhangad, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-AI order contending that order is illegal and unsustainable. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Annexure-AI order shows that Sub Divisional Magistrate had initiated proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the information received from the Sub Inspector of Police. The information received, as disclosed in Annexure-A1 order, is that petitioner is a resident of Kallar Village and an active worker of BJP and is likely to cause political conflict and disturb CRMC 2568/10 2 public tranquility of that locality and he is an accused in C.C.No.784/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdrug, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in Annexure-AI order it is not disclosed on what basis the Sub Inspector found that petitioner is likely to disturb public tranquility in the locality. Annexure-AII final report submitted by the Sub Inspector, taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 341 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, shows that the incident was on 7.5.2008. As stated earlier, the offences alleged are only under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in addition to the petitioner, there should be one more accused. Still, no proceedings is initiated against that accused. Evidently, proceedings were initiated CRMC 2568/10 3 because of the said incident. When Annexure-AI order does not disclose any other basis for initiating proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal procedure, it can only be found that proceedings were initiated without any basis. Hence, petition is allowed. Annexure-AI order is quashed. 3rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv